From anamshane@gmail.com Tue Mar 1 00:39:29 2016 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 03:39:29 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities in drama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> Dear Sue and Brian and all, First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I take your response very seriously. I have some questions for clarification and also some more comments regarding what I think is a ?paradigmatic difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two approaches to education that I outlined in my paper. Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! Ana __________ On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis wrote: As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from very different communities in progressive school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and concern. ANA: Yes! This is what I also addressed in my article: I defined ?Drama in Education? for the purposes of my article exactly that way ? many different approaches ?all of whom independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice?. As with those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look forward to more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and approaches which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning processes. There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely helpful. However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are irreconcilable paradigmatic differences between these pedagogical approaches. In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for using drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play the ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such social agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is little difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of everyday life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing to participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the activation of ?what if? in action. Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern; there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. Ana: In my view ? there are several planes (or to use Bakhtin?s concept - ?chronotopes?) of meaning making in all educational events. Above, you are referring to two of them: a) group relationships and group dynamics of the co-authors: ?when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events?; and b) ?meaning making? ? I assume that you refer here to what each participant understands about the created dramatic world. I want to stress that in my article I was describing precisely these group relationships rather than the participants? understanding of an imaginary dramatic world. What I claim in my article is that there are fundamentally different group relationships, i.e. that the pedagogical chronotope (not the dramatic world) in which the participants of drama in education live, is fundamentally different from the pedagogical chronotope in which the participants of dialogic pedagogy live. In drama in education, the consensus about ?dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern?- is necessary in order to build this particular dramatization. On the other hand, in dialogic pedagogy such consensus about what is "a particular storyline, topic or concern" ? is not necessary at all. In fact, I claim that the most productive and the most welcome aspect of dialogic pedagogy is the very dissent about what is being ?discussed? in the first place. Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being ?trapped? by a teacher with no exit in sight. Ana: I would respectfully disagree here. This phrase and understanding of what should be taking place in drama in education, comes directly from Dorothy Heathcote. I actually just quoted her in my paper: ?The proper tools of drama are emotional reaction and the state of being trapped, a state from which one can escape only by working through the situation.? (Heathcote, Collected writings on drama in education, 1984, p. 91, italics mine). Nor does it mean that a teacher would label someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many practical sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have later chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a group ready to ?discipline? them. Ana: My arguments about the explicit and implicit values of the drama in education approach are actually based exactly on this point: In my view, if a person is under a threat of being ?disciplined? just because they disagree with the majority ? either by openly opposing their opinions, or their ways of acting, or by withdrawing collaboration, and if such opposition is not supported and addressed by the teacher as a legitimate and a serious bid to differ ? then the group regime and the pedagogical approach are, in fact, not dialogic, but rather monologic and, yes, authoritarian! If a teacher has to protect someone from the others in a group that wants to ?discipline? him/her, then the group values that prevail are based on ?who ever is not with us ? is against us?. Doesn?t that mean that there is no active pedagogical support of dissensus? Just as a person who does not join a theatre group cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play with others may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means that a person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of events in an imagined world. Ana: Exactly! Thus this person?s ideas, reasons, points of view, desires, values, etc. are not pedagogically engaged. This person is NOT within the pedagogical scope of this approach. This is, actually, what means to be ?cast out? from a pedagogical event ? the person is just NOT IN. They are OUT. Moreover, this is also often interpreted as that person?s (bad) choice! (As you say ? ?a preschool child choosing not to play.?) Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their choices and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama conducted in the U.S., Heathcote worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an authoritarian position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their actions. When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event in a drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). Even though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate the boys involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with very alternative views from her own. Ana: Since you describe it, I want to briefly analyze this case ? Heathcote?s 2007 drama workshop in NYC. In my view, it actually presents more evidence for the hypothesis I developed in my article. (I am attaching O?Neil?s keynote address to this e-mail - for the curious ones) In my analysis of the event you outlined above (fully described by O?Neil), three major questions/comments come to mind: 1) First: If in Drama in Education approach students can dialogically contribute to creating an imaginary world (as you claim) ? offering their own opinions, ideas and positions, then why would a teacher ever be in a situation to ?castigate students for their actions? ? in the first place? What was ?wrong? with ?blowing up a celebratory event? in the imaginary world? Why were the others in the room [graduate students who observed Dorothy?s master class] horrified? Shouldn?t the spectators be actually very curious about this sudden turn of the events in the imaginary world, which at that point is being truly collaboratively created? 2) Second, O?Neil's very detailed and documented description of Heathcote?s workshop in 2007 - testifies to a subversive resistance of the several boys ? and their constant attempts to resist Dorothy?s pre-set plan of this imaginary world. This unacknowledged, yet very felt resistance, at the end of the workshop lead to their ?sabotage? of Dorothy?s invented world ? by ?blowing it up?. As O?Neil writes: ?One of the graduate students noted in her journal: Noel and his buddies are constantly scheming and plotting and indulging in behaviour which some teachers might consider destructive. However it?s clear to me that their purpose is not to destroy or sabotage the work but to remain within the rules which have already have been established.? (O?Neil, Power sharing ? teacher power and student?s choices, 2014, p. 20, italics mine) My questions/comments here are about the legitimacy of the students? genuine contributions to making of the imaginary world. From the testimony of an observer (a graduate student), it seems that the boys? contributions were limited to Dorothy?s pre-set frame, and that their attempts to change that imaginary frame were in fact not legitimate for the students - but perceived as ?constant scheming and plotting and indulging in behavious which some teachers might consider destructive". That is exactly what I claimed in my article. 3) Finally, O?Neil also describes how Dorothy reacted to this imaginary bomb: ?But Dorothy took this moment and grounded it in reality. As the bomb happened Heathcote?s response was: Just now you have echoed an interview I heard on your local radio this very day, with a young Muslim radical. He said, ?I will kill when the Mullah tells me. It will be the will of Allah. I do not care who will die.?? (p. 95) In my analysis, Dorothy?s reaction in that moment was extremely angry and punitive. She addresses the boys not any more within the imaginary world, but ?grounded in reality.? She compares them ? the 8th grade boys ? to the terrorists, who could say ?I do not care who will die?. Thus, she openly blames the boys for what they did to ?her world? - they destroyed it. They were spoilsports! However, in spite the fact that Dorothy compared the acts of these 8th grade boys within a dramatic world to the actual terrorists - meaning it FOR REAL (grounded in reality), everyone (grad students, other drama educators, Cecily O?Neil, etc.) praises Heathcote!! They praise her for not ?telling the students off?, for being able to withhold her anger and her outright punishment. No one is taken aback with her anger which shows its dark face in her aggressive and vindictive dubbing the boys as ?young Muslim radicals who can say - I do not care who will die? ? dubbing them not as fictional characters in the play ? but ?grounded in reality?!!! I think that the actual ?chronotope? of drama in education pedagogy calls for being ?horrified? with such an open dissent and calls for some kind of ?castigating the boys?. As you say further: Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to misuse her authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has never been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) Ana: yes, I do. that is never our intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at times Heathcote can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on authoritarian teacher positions. Ana: I respectfully disagree -- the case above does not support your assumption. Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not bully or take away power from others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a position to ?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of the democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making all the decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were highly interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved provocations and active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, constantly selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the students were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that would be meaningful in multiple ways for all participants. Ana: I agree with you that Heathcote was a master in creating very intricate, multilayered, and incredibly complex worlds in which she would involve the students in very collaborative and meaningful ways. I also agree that there is a lot of room for creativity in such a setting, and especially when Dorothy Heathcote created it, since she herself was incredibly creative in making the fictional worlds for the students. But, these dramatic worlds were HER worlds ? not the students? worlds. The students were welcome ? but they were never co-authors of these worlds as ?consciousnesses of equal rights? - among whom a meaningful dialogue can happen. Their contributions to these worlds were appreciated by her only as long as they agreed with Dorothy?s own vision. The students were invited to explore and investigate Dorothy?s worlds ? but not to co-create them as equals and co-authors. In that sense, dialogues within these worlds were dialogues of ?the heroes?, who were invented and created by Dorothy as an author ? I draw here on Bakhtin?s analysis of the author-hero relationships ? where the author is the one who has a ?surplus of vision? and knows more than his/her characters. Because of that, a genuine authorial contribution of a student is limited, and the students? own positions, ideas, desires, values, intentions, etc. ? are not examined as such: they can only serve in the function of creating this dramatic word ? of which they are not the owners. The focus, in other words, is not on what the students genuinely think, understand, desire, value, etc., and why, but the focus is on how well has this imaginary world been built. Can the students learn in that situation. Of course. Can they critically test their own ideas, values, desires, postions? Perhaps, but it is out of the focus and scope of the dramatic world. Heathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot increase the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because reflection is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be recognized fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a situation, and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, p. 153). It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples of praxis in an apples and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama in education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for different purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a 45 year old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently by the author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s out-of-role negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been labeled as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special school for youth. Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the children, including through her early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not want to do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in drama, participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that teachers do not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is ours. Heathcote?s intention in this session was to work with the children to create fictional experiences in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out ways in which they might outwit an authoritarian regime represented by her in role as a Nazi officer but further to reflect on an issue of importance to them: why might someone choose to dissent by becoming an informant and a collaborator? Marjanovic-Shane assumes that the purpose of drama in education is to ?socialize? participants whereas dialogic pedagogy seeks to ?deepen critical examinations of any aspect of life.? Whilst socialization may be a declared or implicit purpose there are drama practitioners across decades of work who would also share Marjanovic-Shane?s aim and who have extensively documented how participants working with a teacher may engage in extensive critical cultural analysis of how power operates in society (e.g. Medina & Campano, 2006; Enciso, 2011; O?Connor & Anderson, 2015). In summary, the explicit premise of Marjanovic-Shane?s argument is that drama work is non-dialogic because participants must participate in making a fictional world, which appears to be on the teachers? terms. This is an ill-informed representation of drama?s potential in the classroom. Decades of documentation and analysis would show otherwise . Marjanovic Shane seems to dismiss the imagined possibilities that can be explored through drama and unwilling to engage in dialogue about the different ways that drama could in fact be dialogic. Rather than being restricted to dialogue in the ?real? world with people sharing critical views, participants in drama can collaboratively test out multiple alternatives to what seems ?real? and fixed. In drama everyone can contribute dialogically to create different possible versions of reality, multiple possible outcomes, alternative viewpoints, and new understandings. Ana: Dear Sue and Brian, I respectfully disagree that in drama in education ?everyone can contribute dialogically to create different possible versions of reality, multiple possible outcomes, alternative viewpoints, and new understandings.? If that were the case, a production of a dramatic world could actually never be achieved. A dialogic contribution means having a freedom to bring different and often opposing points of view, testing ideas, exploring these divergences in these points of view, at any point of time, being ready to deconstruct everything and start from scratch, and with every one participants? contribution and voice having an equal right to be heard and to be taken seriously. Agreement (between the participants and especially with the teacher) is not the the condition for participation in a critical dialogue ? in fact, if agreement happens, it may be the end of the dialogue. Dialogic contribution is about deconstruction of the positions and points of view. In this process, imaginary, ?what if? scenarios are always there. They are necessary for exploring all possibilities, finding limits and boundaries, etc. But they are used for analysis and deconstruction. And every new deconstruction is welcomed as an opportunity to move the boundaries of the existing truths and meanings. This is simply not the case in drama in education ? where the boundaries and frames of ONE imaginary world have to stand firm ? in order for that world to even begin to live. As the boys in Dorothy?s last workshop showed ? when you ?bomb? people in their dramatic world which is about celebrating life in a peaceful vineyard ? you just change the whole meaning (and intent) of that story! For a drama in education project ? this is devastating (according to everyone?s testimony!!) But not for a dialogic pedagogy approach. ***** Finally, I want to make a remark about the cases I used in my article to analyze the two approaches to education. You said they are like appleas and oranges!! I agree. It is because they come from to different paradigms. They cannot be compared, and there is no middle ground between them. They are not parallel, nor two poles of a continuum. Nor are they a dichotomy. It is like a geocentric and a heliocentric view of the universe. The trajectory of a planet in one and the other are not, in fact comparable ? Mars? trajectory based in the geocentric paradigm does not make any sense in the heliocentric paradigm. And the other way around. They cannot be compared. But ? in order to describe these two educational paradigms, I sought the most prominent cases, where the cases themselves provide the evidence of the pedagogical philosophies that lie in their roots. The comparison is not between the cases, but between the pedagogical principles and philosophies. They start with different premisses about the role of the imaginary in our learning and development, with different chronotopes in the main focus: ?imaginary? in the drama in education vs. reality in dialogic pedagogy; and they legitimize different ways that teachers and students can relate to and address each other, i.e. - they start from different kinds of inter-subjectivity that is appropriate within each approach. Here I actually added more evidence to my article by briefly analyzed the case of Dorothy?s 2007 workshop ? the one that you brought in. I could not see what you see: I found the same philosophy (I outlined in my paper) based on achieving consensus necessary for ?suspending belief? in constructing the imaginary world, which is pre-planned by the teacher. I also found that the boys? opposition to the teacher, in this ?master class? had to be subterranean: the boys have found ways to smuggle this opposition into the imaginary world itself - because they could not legitimately address their disagreement with Dorothy?s frame without being ?cast out? - i.e. told to stay out of it if they don?t want to play (the way that Dorothy meticulously prepared it). Everyone including Dorothy was aware of their deep non-cooperation, masked as various attempts to push and stretch her pre-arranged world. But no one addressed their opposition seriously ? no one tried to find out what were these boys opposing, what did they find wrong with this world that Dorothy so meticulously prepared for them. No one tried to find out their true point of view, and how would they create a dramatic world, if at all! ? if they were asked. It was a cat-and-mouse game ? until it exploded as a bomb on the last day. ******* Thanks for great references you provided! I am attaching O?Neil?s keynote address here for those who are interested in the intricate and incredibly interesting dynamic of this late workshop conducted by Dorothy. I personally admire Dorothy?s ability, her creativity, her meticulousness, her magical performances in creating dramatic worlds, and her passion for what she was doing. And as I explained in my paper, too, there is a lot to gain from drama in education (in the wide sense)! It is very engaging, creative, authorial, and constructive. However, paradigmatically, it is different from critical dialogic pedagogy ? in which the wildest and the most opposing positions are welcomed, and these diverse positions are collectively (yes, together!!) problematized and deconstructed ? without any bind to jointly arrive too the same conclusion nor to agreement nor to build a unified world together. Ana The social and cultural power of drama is that people may change their views, understand more about themselves, others, and the world we live in. Surely that is what all good pedagogues would hope and desire. Susan Davis and Brian Edmiston Central Queensland University & The Ohio State University s.davis@cqu.edu.au, edmiston.1@osu.edu References Enciso, P. (2011). Storytelling in critical literacy pedagogy: Removing the walls between immigrant and non-immigrant youth. In H. Janks & V. Vasquez (Eds.) Special Issue: Critical Literacy Revisited: Writing as Critique for English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10, 1, 21-40. Heathcote, D. (1984). Collected writings on education and drama. L. Johnson & C. O?Neill (Eds.). Melbourne: Hutchinson. Heathcote, D. (2002). Contexts for active learning - Four models to forge links between schooling and society. Paper presented at the NATD Annual Conference, Birmingham. http://www.moeplanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/dh-contexts-for-act ive-learning.pdf Medina, C. & Campano, G. (2006). Performing Identities through Drama and Teatro Practices in Multilingual Classrooms. Language Arts, 83 (4), 332-341. Turner, Victor (1974). Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press. O?Connor, P. & Anderson, M. (2015). Applied Theatre Research: Radical Departures. London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama. O?Neill, C. (2014) Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices. in P. Bowell, P & C. Lawrence (Eds), Heathcote Reconsidered - Conference Echoes (ebook), London: National Drama, 13-31 From josipa.lulic@gmail.com Tue Mar 1 00:55:39 2016 From: josipa.lulic@gmail.com (Josipa Lulic) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 08:55:39 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: <56d51d47.0a66420a.34ecf.1e9c@mx.google.com> References: <56d51d47.0a66420a.34ecf.1e9c@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I have been following the discussions on the list for some time now, especially from the perspective of dialogic pedagogy, but remained outside of the dialogue, unconsciously buying into Freire's notion of 'banking education' - the student should be quiet and absorb the Knowledge. I hope that my experience in dialogical drama will add at least some value to the conversation. I am not a researcher, but practitioner - for the last 15 years I''ve been using Augusto Boal's Theatre of the Oppressed in different educational settings. On the other hand, I teach at a university, and my scholarly work is in a different field, so I am very much aware of the theoretical depths I am missing in this one, so I will just share the practice part of my praxis. Boal's theatre is firmly connected with the Paulo Freire's ideas in his Pedagogy of the Opressed, namely that all members of the community have ideas and knowledge, especially about their own worlds. The same way that the teacher is not the owner of the Truth, so the actors and directors (i there is one - through my workshops actors direct themselves) are not the owners of the Truth of the situation they are presenting. If there is someone unfamiliar with Boal's Forum Theatre, the idea is following: actors prepare a scene. The scene has to present (in any form - from musical to ballet and realism, up to 30 mins in length) a problem that came from the experiences of the actors and the community. There is a protagonist who wants to fight for his or hers right, but is ultimately defeated by the antagonist who's will is aided by the system of oppression. The examples of the plays I worked on include a Roma child being falsely accused of stealing money in the classroom; a working class child being bullied because she doesn't own an Iphone, a girl getting hit by a boy she was hooking up with because she changed her mind at one point, a girl pressured by the society and her social group to dress "sexy" and then cyberbullied for being a "whore", and many dozenth more. The scene is then presented in the classroom to the students as audience, and the Joker (a facilitator) asks the students following: can this happen in your experience? do you see a problem? how do you define the problem? what are the roles - who is oppressed, who is the oppressor? do you want to see the scene end differently? and finally, what would you do? The audience is invited to stop the replay in any moment, ask questions to the characters and enter in the play, take place of protagonist (or tritagonist) and try to find as many solutions as possible. There are no prearranged scripts or rules (other than not using the magical solutions and avoiding violence). Everything is directed back to the audience - they choose to participate or not, they even define if there is a problem in the first place (out of several hundreds performances only twice the audience decided that there was no problem (both times because "girl deserved to be cyberbullied because she wore a short skirt"). In the first case the whole class agreed, and we didn't continue the performance - instead we had an open disussion in the group. Int he second, a third of the audience didn't want to continue - they moved to the back of the class, and allowed to return to the audience if they changed their minds, which some of them did). In my experience, that form of theatre is often the most dialogic education the students have experienced. Unfortunately, that isn't so hard - schools in my country have quite rigid infrastructure, and the teacher education only rarely involves any critical pedagogy. I found that the unapologetic dialogic nature of the Boal's theatre informed my own practice of teaching at the university (I've managed to teach subjects such as "Psychological approaches to the Theory of Art" almost entirely through dialogic form). Also, the feedback we get from the teachers and the students themselves, especially the ones who went through the workshops and preformed their plays to different audiences, is that they started to interact differently in the classrooms - they started asking questions and initiating dialogue. We also organize the workshops for teachers, and that experience empowers them to approach more openly to their teaching practice. All in all, concerning this particular form of theatre, in my particular experience, in my particular part of the world, not only do I find that it fits in the dialogic education paradigm, but that is serves as the entry point for the dialogue in general, in the educational setting. I very much look forward to the continuation of this conversation! Josipa On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:42 AM wrote: > As I read Ana?s entry into this genre exploring drama and dialogue through > the leverage gained through the symbolic personification of the > *spoilsport* I sensed her opening a conversation on various *structures > of consciousness*. On page 51 Ana explores the question of what becomes > *suspended* [belief or disbelief]. In other words the thematic of the > relation of reality to the imaginal, the fictional, and the illusional and > our ways of evaluating what we take on faith to be believed. > > If the *spoilsport* is imagined as a *structure of consciousness* in the > form of a symbolic personification describing the *character* of this > person/icon then we can ask why Ana is captured by this persona? > Ana values this person because s/he shatters the play-world *itself* by > withdrawing from this game. In the act of *withdrawing* this person REVEALS > the relativity and fragility of these play-worlds.The spoilsport robs play > of its *illusion*. > > Ana then focuses on the this word *illusion* calling it a pregnant word. > Illusion means *literally* [in-play from illusio, illudere, inludere]. > This structure of consciousness trespasses against the rules, and threatens > the existence of the play community. > This *figure* shatters and transfigures [even annihilates] what is assumed > to be true [and natural]. This figure REVEALS different points of view > through withdrawing and in the process of withdrawing opens a space/zone of > new boundaries on the other side of the horizon of the taken for granted > limits of shared reality. > > Now how does Ana identify the figure/person of the spoilsport? She > identifies this *structure of consciousness* with what are called > apostates, heretics, innovators, prophets, conscientious objectors, etc. > Then Ana makes the case that this structure of consciousness is de/valued > in both the world of high seriousness and the world of play. However, this > same structure of consciousness is highly valued in critical dialogue as > the *spark* that ignites or generates the dialogue which puts BOTH the > illusion and the real to the test. > > > Now Susan in taking her turn says that in process drama the spoilsport is > not devalued but is INCLUDED in the play-world and is welcomed when wanting > to **withdraw* from the play-world. This structure of consciousness can be > *incorporated* within the place/zone or horizon of the dramatic. > > This genre exploring faith, belief, meaning, illusion, fiction, literal, > metaphorical and their relations to what is considered real and *authentic* > traverses multiple structures of consciousness and how we include or > exclude the spoilsport remains an open question. There are other *figures* > or *characters* personifying other structures of consciousness. > > This will take us far afield from the exploration of this particular > personification but I will just mention in passing the figure of Hermes, > who is the trickster. He may be as significant a person in play-worlds as > the spoilsport. > > Sent from Mail for Windows > > From: Susan Davis > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:30 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional > dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning > possibilities > > Hi Mike, > Our apologies for posting > what appears as a formal response to Ana?s article. I guess our main > concerns relate to her setting > up multiples fields of scholarship and practice as ?drama in education? > which > are then critiqued in a negative and oppositional to dialogic pedagogy > using terms such as ?irreconcilable?. > > > In terms of the ?spoilsport' article > itself we have real concerns about certain features of the scholarship of > it. Firstly we are > concerned with the use of a 1955 quote with no credence in our field being > used > to underpin the premise and inference that in drama education those who > don?t > with to participate or hold different views are labeled spoilsports and > cast > out. > Secondly we are concerned > about the evidence being used to support such claims being the comparison > of > two examples which have no common basis for comparison (a short extract > from a > highly edited commercial film of a drama with children, compared to an > account > of various events related to discussions in a teacher education course) > Thirdly we feel that > opinion has been used to make assertions about a lack of critical student > voice > and power in drama, when decades of research have now demonstrated > otherwise. > > > Ironically with Ana?s positioning there appears > to be no room for dialogue about what might be possible in conceiving of a > pedagogy > that may be described as being both dramatic and dialogic. In the dialogic > pedagogy paradigm Ana seems to subscribe to, it also appears there is no > room > for any positive dialogue, any shifts or resolutions, but almost that > dialogue must > begin with and maintain resistant and oppositional positions. She also > seems > to see no possibility for dialogic pedagogy through working within > dramatic ?imaginary? > frames if the teacher or facilitator has had anything to do with > determining > the starting point or framing. I guess our response then to the article > is that it just makes us feel really quite sad, as we have seen the > benefits of such a pedagogy and embrace opportunities for its continual > re-examination and renewal. > > However, as far as we are concerned? the door is still open... > > > Kind regards > Sue & Brian. > > > > On 1/03/2016 11:28 am, "mike cole" wrote: > > >Susan et al. > > > >I have not commented on this discussion because events have prevented me > >from watching the film and reading the relevant papers. I am very > >interested in drama so I hope I can catch up at some point. > > > >I comment now only on the genre of the discussion. Susan and Brian have > >posted a next turn in the conversation that began after Ana posted her > >paper and posed what appears to be two different ideas about the role of > >drama in education. But it is a special kind of next turn because it is > >responding on xmca where Ana is Ana and not Marjanovic-Shane. > > > >I would not want the formal tone of Marjanovic-Shane and footnotes to > >allow > >us to think we have slipped from the realm of collegial chatting into the > >realm of refereed journal articles! > > > >I really appreciate all the work that went into the formal reply, and it > >made me wonder just what it is that Susan, Brian, and Ana appear to be > >disagreeing over. > > > >Without looking, I expected the big issue to be whether or not kids > >entering into dramatic activity at school, whatever its venue, have the > >power to change the plot. But it seems much more is involved. > > > >If I could only get myself disentangled in this darn 5th Dimension I live > >in, I would have a chance to catch up, but one thing keeps leading to > >another....... > > > >Dialogically and Dramatically Speaking > >mike > > > > > > > >On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > > > >> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for > >> educational purposes we wish to > >> respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in > >>drama in > >> education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our > >> shared > >> professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that > >>we > >> hope > >> will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. > >>At > >> the > >> same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we > >> regard > >> as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. > >> > >> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified > >> field named ?drama in education? that would extend to > >> those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth > >>as > >> claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we > >> are > >> knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a > >> classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or > >> ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, > >> and > >> dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice > >> have arisen from very different communities in progressive > >> school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all > >>of > >> whom > >> independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. > >>There > >> have > >> only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see > >>for > >> example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? > >> < > >> > >> > http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257 > >>6 > >> 910/> which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and > >> concern. As with > >> those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look > >>forward to > >> more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and > >> approaches > >> which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning > >> processes. > >> > >> There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the > >> dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely > >>helpful. > >> However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that > >> any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are > >>irreconcilable > >> paradigmatic > >> differences between these pedagogical approaches. > >> > >> In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for > >>using > >> drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play > >>the > >> ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and > >> enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such > >>social > >> agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is > >> little > >> difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of > >> everyday > >> life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing > >>to > >> participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of > >> possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the > >> activation of ?what if? in action. > >> > >> Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a > >> group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing > >> life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work > >> together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or > >> concern; > >> there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. > >> > >> Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose > >> not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. > >> Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed > >> dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being > >>?trapped? > >> by a > >> teacher with no exit in sight. Nor does it mean that a teacher would > >>label > >> someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many > >>practical > >> sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have > >> later > >> chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a > >> group > >> ready to ?discipline? them. Just as a person who does not join a theatre > >> group > >> cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play > >> with others > >> may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means > >>that > >> a > >> person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of > >> events > >> in an imagined world. > >> > >> Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama > >> session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to > >> infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their > >> choices > >> and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the > >> keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power > >> and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama > >> conducted in the U.S., Heathcote > >> worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an > >>authoritarian > >> position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their > >> actions. > >> When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event > >> in a > >> drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t > >> happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). > >>Even > >> though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate > >>the > >> boys > >> involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, > >> drawing out > >> significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with > >> very > >> alternative views from her own. > >> > >> Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is > >> authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a > >> fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to > >>misuse > >> her > >> authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might > >> participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has > >> never > >> been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) that is never our > >> intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at > >> times Heathcote > >> can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within > >> dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on > >> authoritarian > >> teacher positions. > >> > >> Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she > >> intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their > >> power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not > >> bully or take away power from > >> others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her > >> commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an > >> interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here > >> Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching > >> strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a > >>position > >> to > >> ?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many > >> romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of > >> the > >> democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making > >>all > >> the > >> decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were > >>highly > >> interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved > >> provocations and > >> active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, > >> constantly > >> selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the > >> students > >> were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that > >> would be meaningful > >> in multiple ways for all participants. > >> H > >> eathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to > >> create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect > >> to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot > >> increase > >> the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because > >> reflection > >> is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). > >> Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be > >> recognized > >> fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a > >> situation, > >> and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, > >> p. 153). > >> > >> It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples > >>of > >> praxis in an apples > >> and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama > >>in > >> education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for > >> different > >> purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a > >>45 > >> year > >> old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of > >> exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently > >>by > >> the > >> author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few > >> minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not > >> educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s > >> out-of-role > >> negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been > >> labeled > >> as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special > >>school > >> for > >> youth. > >> > >> Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the > >> children, including through her > >> early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not > >>want > >> to > >> do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in > >>drama, > >> participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that > >> teachers do > >> not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is > >> ours. Heathcote?s > >> intention in this session was to work with the children to create > >> fictional experiences > >> in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out > >>ways > >> in > >> which they might outwit an authoritarian regime represented by her in > >>role > >> as a > >> Nazi officer but further to reflect on an issue of importance to them: > >>why > >> might > >> someone choose to dissent by becoming an informant and a collaborator? > >> > >> Marjanovic-Shane assumes that the purpose of drama in education is to > >> ?socialize? participants whereas dialogic pedagogy seeks to > >> ?deepen critical examinations of any aspect of life.? Whilst > >>socialization > >> may > >> be a declared or implicit purpose there are drama practitioners across > >> decades > >> of work who would also share Marjanovic-Shane?s aim and who have > >> extensively > >> documented how participants working with a teacher may engage in > >>extensive > >> critical > >> cultural analysis of how power operates in society (e.g. Medina & > >>Campano, > >> 2006; Enciso, 2011; O?Connor & Anderson, 2015). > >> > >> In summary, the explicit premise of Marjanovic-Shane?s > >> argument is that drama work is non-dialogic because participants must > >> participate in making a fictional world, which appears to be on the > >> teachers? > >> terms. This is an ill-informed representation of drama?s potential in > >>the > >> classroom. Decades of documentation and analysis would show otherwise . > >> Marjanovic Shane seems to dismiss the imagined possibilities that can be > >> explored through drama and unwilling to engage in dialogue about the > >> different > >> ways that drama could in fact be dialogic. Rather than being restricted > >>to > >> dialogue in the ?real? world with people sharing critical views, > >> participants in > >> drama can collaboratively test out multiple alternatives to what seems > >> ?real? and > >> fixed. In drama everyone can contribute dialogically to create different > >> possible > >> versions of reality, multiple possible outcomes, alternative viewpoints, > >> and > >> new understandings. The social and cultural power of drama is that > >>people > >> may > >> change their views, understand more about themselves, others, and the > >> world we > >> live in. Surely that is what all good pedagogues would hope and desire. > >> > >> > >> Susan Davis and Brian Edmiston > >> Central Queensland University & The Ohio State University > >> s.davis@cqu.edu.au, edmiston.1@osu.edu > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> References > >> Enciso, P. (2011). Storytelling in critical > >> literacy pedagogy: Removing the walls between immigrant and > >>non-immigrant > >> youth. In H. Janks & V. Vasquez (Eds.) Special Issue: Critical Literacy > >> Revisited: Writing as Critique for English Teaching: Practice and > >> Critique, 10, 1, 21-40. > >> Heathcote, D. (1984). Collected writings > >> on education and drama. L. Johnson & C. O?Neill (Eds.). Melbourne: > >> Hutchinson. > >> Heathcote, > >> D. (2002). Contexts for active learning - > >> Four models to forge links between schooling and society. Paper > >>presented > >> at the NATD Annual Conference, Birmingham. > >> > >> > http://www.moeplanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/dh-contexts-for-a > >>ct > >> ive-learning.pdf > >> Medina, C. & Campano, G. (2006). Performing > >> Identities through Drama and Teatro Practices in Multilingual > >>Classrooms. > >> Language Arts, 83 (4), 332-341. > >> Turner, Victor (1974). Dramas, Fields, and > >> Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell > >> University > >> Press. > >> O?Connor, P. & Anderson, M. (2015). Applied Theatre Research: Radical > >> Departures. > >> London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama. > >> O?Neill, C. > >> (2014) Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices. in P. Bowell, > >>P & > >> C. > >> Lawrence (Eds), Heathcote Reconsidered - > >> Conference Echoes (ebook), London: National Drama, 13-31 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 29/02/2016 7:49 am, "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Dear Sue, > >> > > >> >I am looking forward to your feedback and critique. > >> > > >> >Ana > >> > > >> > > >> >> On Feb 28, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi all, > >> >> > >> >> Thank you Larry, Helen and Ana for your comments. > >> >> > >> >> Helen - always lovely to find out who else is out there exploring the > >> >> possibilities of working with the arts to bring about transformative > >> >> learning and Larry I really like that proposition that in drama the > >> >> premise begins with ?I can? and then moves to ?I think?. That is > >>very > >> >> much the case with drama, and sometimes children/participants are > >>very > >> >> nervous or uncertain when they begin a drama process, often because > >>they > >> >> begin from a position of ?I can?t? but through the acts of doing they > >> >> begin to see that they in fact can do and become. > >> >> > >> >> Ana I would agree with the first part of your statement about drama > >>in > >> >> education being used to help socialise students into socially > >>recognised > >> >> valuable practices and would think that was a good thing given > >>research > >> >> that shows reductions in empathy in young people in recent times. I > >> >>have > >> >> concerns with the rest of your proposition and the sweeping nature of > >> >>the > >> >> critique. > >> >> > >> >> A colleague and I have been preparing a short response to your > >>article > >> >>and > >> >> I will check with him to see if he is happy for me to post it here. > >> >> > >> >> I would of course be happy to hear other ?dialogue? as well. > >> >> > >> >> Kind regards > >> >> > >> >> Sue > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 29/02/2016 2:35 am, "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >> >>> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Dear all, > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently > >> >>> published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's > >> >>>drama in > >> >>> education approach and other approaches to education that are based > >>on > >> >>> some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in > >> >>> education vs dialogic pedagogy*. > >> >>> To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in > >> >>> Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on > >> >>> socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable > >> >>>practices, > >> >>> values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on > >> >>> agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without > >> >>>students > >> >>> having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, > >> >>> provide different points of view and question the existing social > >> >>> practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other > >>words, > >> >>>in > >> >>> this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach > >>to > >> >>> testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively > >> >>> suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. > >> >>> > >> >>> In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same > >> >>>video > >> >>> posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. > >> >>>Below > >> >>> is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at > >>Dialogic > >> >>> Pedagogy Journal website - > >> >>> http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 > >> >>> > >> >>> So, what do you think? > >> >>> > >> >>> Ana > >> >>> > >> >>> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ > >> >>> "Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy > >> >>> Abstract > >> >>> > >> >>> In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to > >>overcome > >> >>> alienation often experienced by students in the conventional > >>education. > >> >>> These two educational paradigms are embodied in different > >>educational > >> >>> practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is > >> >>>based on > >> >>> the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic > >>(meaning-making), > >> >>>and > >> >>> social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or > >> >>> imagination, > >> >>> thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological > >>Dialogic > >> >>> Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical > >> >>>dialogue > >> >>> among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where > >> >>> education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, > >>the > >> >>> others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual > >> >>> similarities > >> >>> and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding > >>their > >> >>> understanding the nature of learning; social values that they > >>promote; > >> >>>the > >> >>> group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? > >> >>> subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the > >>learners? > >> >>> disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the > >> >>> educational events and settings, and the relationships of power > >>within > >> >>>the > >> >>> social organization of educational communities in these two diverse > >> >>> educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in > >>these > >> >>>two > >> >>> educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical > >> >>> examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the > >> >>> participants? > >> >>> agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities > >> >>>between > >> >>> the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the > >> >>>analysis of > >> >>> their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on > >> >>>human > >> >>> development, learning and education. Although both Drama in > >>Education > >> >>>and > >> >>> Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage > >>the > >> >>> learners in the process of education, they do it for different > >>purposes > >> >>> and > >> >>> with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their > >> >>> relationship to the world, each other and their own developing > >>selves. > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> 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 +61 418 763 428 > >> L https://www.linkedin.com/in/suedavisnoosa > >> RG | https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan_Davis7 > >> Profile | http://profiles.cqu.edu.au/profiles/view/272 > >> Latest > >> publication: > >> > >> > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxi > >>s/ > >> learning-that-matters/ > >> > >> > >> This communication may contain privileged or confidential information. > >>If > >> you have received this in error, > >> please return to sender and delete. CRICOS: 00219C | RTO Code 40939 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > > > >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 Mar 1 07:59:54 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 07:59:54 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> Ana, In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing chrono/topes. * community of players (CoPl) * reality (RC) or ontological * imagined (IC) Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a chronotopic theme. There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its opposite. Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. Chronotopes. Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar opposites in your horizon of understanding. A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of players chronotopes. I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar opposites. This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the other side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 12:41 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities Dear Sue and Brian and all, First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I take your response very seriously. I have some questions for clarification and also some more comments regarding what I think is a ?paradigmatic difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two approaches to education that I outlined in my paper. Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! Ana __________ On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis wrote: As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from very different communities in progressive school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and concern. ANA: Yes! This is what I also addressed in my article: I defined ?Drama in Education? for the purposes of my article exactly that way ? many different approaches ?all of whom independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice?. As with those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look forward to more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and approaches which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning processes. There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely helpful. However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are irreconcilable paradigmatic differences between these pedagogical approaches. In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for using drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play the ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such social agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is little difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of everyday life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing to participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the activation of ?what if? in action. Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern; there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. Ana: In my view ? there are several planes (or to use Bakhtin?s concept - ?chronotopes?) of meaning making in all educational events. Above, you are referring to two of them: a) group relationships and group dynamics of the co-authors: ?when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events?; and b) ?meaning making? ? I assume that you refer here to what each participant understands about the created dramatic world. I want to stress that in my article I was describing precisely these group relationships rather than the participants? understanding of an imaginary dramatic world. What I claim in my article is that there are fundamentally different group relationships, i.e. that the pedagogical chronotope (not the dramatic world) in which the participants of drama in education live, is fundamentally different from the pedagogical chronotope in which the participants of dialogic pedagogy live. In drama in education, the consensus about ?dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern?- is necessary in order to build this particular dramatization. On the other hand, in dialogic pedagogy such consensus about what is "a particular storyline, topic or concern" ? is not necessary at all. In fact, I claim that the most productive and the most welcome aspect of dialogic pedagogy is the very dissent about what is being ?discussed? in the first place. Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being ?trapped? by a teacher with no exit in sight. Ana: I would respectfully disagree here. This phrase and understanding of what should be taking place in drama in education, comes directly from Dorothy Heathcote. I actually just quoted her in my paper: ?The proper tools of drama are emotional reaction and the state of being trapped, a state from which one can escape only by working through the situation.? (Heathcote, Collected writings on drama in education, 1984, p. 91, italics mine). Nor does it mean that a teacher would label someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many practical sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have later chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a group ready to ?discipline? them. Ana: My arguments about the explicit and implicit values of the drama in education approach are actually based exactly on this point: In my view, if a person is under a threat of being ?disciplined? just because they disagree with the majority ? either by openly opposing their opinions, or their ways of acting, or by withdrawing collaboration, and if such opposition is not supported and addressed by the teacher as a legitimate and a serious bid to differ ? then the group regime and the pedagogical approach are, in fact, not dialogic, but rather monologic and, yes, authoritarian! If a teacher has to protect someone from the others in a group that wants to ?discipline? him/her, then the group values that prevail are based on ?who ever is not with us ? is against us?. Doesn?t that mean that there is no active pedagogical support of dissensus? Just as a person who does not join a theatre group cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play with others may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means that a person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of events in an imagined world. Ana: Exactly! Thus this person?s ideas, reasons, points of view, desires, values, etc. are not pedagogically engaged. This person is NOT within the pedagogical scope of this approach. This is, actually, what means to be ?cast out? from a pedagogical event ? the person is just NOT IN. They are OUT. Moreover, this is also often interpreted as that person?s (bad) choice! (As you say ? ?a preschool child choosing not to play.?) Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their choices and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama conducted in the U.S., Heathcote worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an authoritarian position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their actions. When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event in a drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). Even though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate the boys involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with very alternative views from her own. Ana: Since you describe it, I want to briefly analyze this case ? Heathcote?s 2007 drama workshop in NYC. In my view, it actually presents more evidence for the hypothesis I developed in my article. (I am attaching O?Neil?s keynote address to this e-mail - for the curious ones) In my analysis of the event you outlined above (fully described by O?Neil), three major questions/comments come to mind: 1) First: If in Drama in Education approach students can dialogically contribute to creating an imaginary world (as you claim) ? offering their own opinions, ideas and positions, then why would a teacher ever be in a situation to ?castigate students for their actions? ? in the first place? What was ?wrong? with ?blowing up a celebratory event? in the imaginary world? Why were the others in the room [graduate students who observed Dorothy?s master class] horrified? Shouldn?t the spectators be actually very curious about this sudden turn of the events in the imaginary world, which at that point is being truly collaboratively created? 2) Second, O?Neil's very detailed and documented description of Heathcote?s workshop in 2007 - testifies to a subversive resistance of the several boys ? and their constant attempts to resist Dorothy?s pre-set plan of this imaginary world. This unacknowledged, yet very felt resistance, at the end of the workshop lead to their ?sabotage? of Dorothy?s invented world ? by ?blowing it up?. As O?Neil writes: ?One of the graduate students noted in her journal: Noel and his buddies are constantly scheming and plotting and indulging in behaviour which some teachers might consider destructive. However it?s clear to me that their purpose is not to destroy or sabotage the work but to remain within the rules which have already have been established.? (O?Neil, Power sharing ? teacher power and student?s choices, 2014, p. 20, italics mine) My questions/comments here are about the legitimacy of the students? genuine contributions to making of the imaginary world. From the testimony of an observer (a graduate student), it seems that the boys? contributions were limited to Dorothy?s pre-set frame, and that their attempts to change that imaginary frame were in fact not legitimate for the students - but perceived as ?constant scheming and plotting and indulging in behavious which some teachers might consider destructive". That is exactly what I claimed in my article. 3) Finally, O?Neil also describes how Dorothy reacted to this imaginary bomb: ?But Dorothy took this moment and grounded it in reality. As the bomb happened Heathcote?s response was: Just now you have echoed an interview I heard on your local radio this very day, with a young Muslim radical. He said, ?I will kill when the Mullah tells me. It will be the will of Allah. I do not care who will die.?? (p. 95) In my analysis, Dorothy?s reaction in that moment was extremely angry and punitive. She addresses the boys not any more within the imaginary world, but ?grounded in reality.? She compares them ? the 8th grade boys ? to the terrorists, who could say ?I do not care who will die?. Thus, she openly blames the boys for what they did to ?her world? - they destroyed it. They were spoilsports! However, in spite the fact that Dorothy compared the acts of these 8th grade boys within a dramatic world to the actual terrorists - meaning it FOR REAL (grounded in reality), everyone (grad students, other drama educators, Cecily O?Neil, etc.) praises Heathcote!! They praise her for not ?telling the students off?, for being able to withhold her anger and her outright punishment. No one is taken aback with her anger which shows its dark face in her aggressive and vindictive dubbing the boys as ?young Muslim radicals who can say - I do not care who will die? ? dubbing them not as fictional characters in the play ? but ?grounded in reality?!!! I think that the actual ?chronotope? of drama in education pedagogy calls for being ?horrified? with such an open dissent and calls for some kind of ?castigating the boys?. As you say further: Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to misuse her authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has never been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) Ana: yes, I do. that is never our intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at times Heathcote can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on authoritarian teacher positions. Ana: I respectfully disagree -- the case above does not support your assumption. Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not bully or take away power from others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a position to ?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of the democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making all the decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were highly interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved provocations and active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, constantly selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the students were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that would be meaningful in multiple ways for all participants. Ana: I agree with you that Heathcote was a master in creating very intricate, multilayered, and incredibly complex worlds in which she would involve the students in very collaborative and meaningful ways. I also agree that there is a lot of room for creativity in such a setting, and especially when Dorothy Heathcote created it, since she herself was incredibly creative in making the fictional worlds for the students. But, these dramatic worlds were HER worlds ? not the students? worlds. The students were welcome ? but they were never co-authors of these worlds as ?consciousnesses of equal rights? - among whom a meaningful dialogue can happen. Their contributions to these worlds were appreciated by her only as long as they agreed with Dorothy?s own vision. The students were invited to explore and investigate Dorothy?s worlds ? but not to co-create them as equals and co-authors. In that sense, dialogues within these worlds were dialogues of ?the heroes?, who were invented and created by Dorothy as an author ? I draw here on Bakhtin?s analysis of the author-hero relationships ? where the author is the one who has a ?surplus of vision? and knows more than his/her characters. Because of that, a genuine authorial contribution of a student is limited, and the students? own positions, ideas, desires, values, intentions, etc. ? are not examined as such: they can only serve in the function of creating this dramatic word ? of which they are not the owners. The focus, in other words, is not on what the students genuinely think, understand, desire, value, etc., and why, but the focus is on how well has this imaginary world been built. Can the students learn in that situation. Of course. Can they critically test their own ideas, values, desires, postions? Perhaps, but it is out of the focus and scope of the dramatic world. Heathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot increase the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because reflection is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be recognized fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a situation, and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, p. 153). It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples of praxis in an apples and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama in education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for different purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a 45 year old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently by the author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s out-of-role negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been labeled as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special school for youth. Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the children, including through her early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not want to do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in drama, participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that teachers do not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is ours. Heathcote?s intention in this session was to work with the children to create fictional experiences in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out ways in which they might outwit an authoritarian [The entire original message is not included.] From ewall@umich.edu Tue Mar 1 08:16:50 2016 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 10:16:50 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Heathcote and Immagination In-Reply-To: References: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> Message-ID: <4C1392F0-E56F-49F7-8246-7E61A04C6D4C@umich.edu> Mike I?m not entirely positive which discussion you are referring below, but, although I probably have it, I don?t have it pulled out. Also I?m not entirely sure what questions you say are left hanging; questions sometimes have a way of being answered (smile). Interesting you mention Maxine Greene as, in a way, what I consider as the most relevant of her writings here was early and titled ?The Teacher as Stranger.? However, that is my perspective on these things. I?m not quite ready for "drama and imagination" although I would be fine, in the interim, with "teacher and imagination.? I have, perhaps, a few things of interest to say in my reply to Susan which I will get to later today. Ed > On Feb 29, 2016, at 7:53 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Seems like the section on imagination you mention, Susan, fits right in > with that thread of xmca discussion. Linking drama and imagination seems > essential to me and you mention several who have done so effectively. You > also remind me to go back and re-read Maxine Greene! Now I am further > behind than ever. Better stop reading. :-) > > Ed, do you have that discussion pulled out and re-examined. It left a LOT > of questions unanswered. > > Maybe we need a header called drama and imagination? > > If so, I vote we add Raymond Williams to the discussion. > mike > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:39 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-praxi >>>> 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.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 anamshane@gmail.com Tue Mar 1 08:19:48 2016 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:19:48 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <56d51d47.0a66420a.34ecf.1e9c@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4EC501AC-1F76-4F45-94D5-38414D71A7CB@gmail.com> Dear Josipa, Thanks for bringing Boal into this dialog. Boal is an extremely interesting dramatic artist. As you describe his Theater of the Oppressed, it is very different from what I have called ?Drama in Education?. I think, that this is because of several important differences between his practice and traditional, even progressive education. The first distinction that I see is in the purpose of education and the Forum theater. While the purpose of most of the educational approaches is to teach a preset curriculum - culturally valuable skills and knowledge, and specifically such curriculum that is valued by the dominant culture, the purpose of the Forum theater is to support and foster agency of the oppressed people (cultural, social political economic, etc - minorities) who traditionally don?t have a recognized voice in the dominant culture. This changes the vision of and the way that the participants in the two practices can relate to each other. In the traditional and progressive education the relationships between the teacher and the students are the relationships between the expert and the novice, someone who possesses ?cultural capital? and someone who lacks this ?cultural capital? - making the students? agency subordinated to the power, authority and judgment of the teacher. In the Forum theater, the participants are viewed as people with equal rights of power, authority over their own lives and it is their judgment that is valued as legitimate, and legitimized as the participants? fundamental right. Another distinction between the two practices is in the fact that the art of drama is used in traditional and progressive education for purposes that are outside of the art and drama?s internal sphere - instrumentally to achieve educational goals. On the other hand, Forum theater is a form of art in which the participants get involved as the authors of that art themselves - while what they learn is a by-product of whatever they have created. There is no pre-set purpose or a goal, or a curriculum that is imposed on the participants by an authority above them. I am extremely interested to learn more about Boal from different points of view - and in particular from your work. Ana > On Mar 1, 2016, at 3:55 AM, Josipa Lulic wrote: > > Dear all, > > I have been following the discussions on the list for some time now, > especially from the perspective of dialogic pedagogy, but remained outside > of the dialogue, unconsciously buying into Freire's notion of 'banking > education' - the student should be quiet and absorb the Knowledge. I hope > that my experience in dialogical drama will add at least some value to the > conversation. I am not a researcher, but practitioner - for the last 15 > years I''ve been using Augusto Boal's Theatre of the Oppressed in different > educational settings. On the other hand, I teach at a university, and my > scholarly work is in a different field, so I am very much aware of the > theoretical depths I am missing in this one, so I will just share the > practice part of my praxis. > > Boal's theatre is firmly connected with the Paulo Freire's ideas in his > Pedagogy of the Opressed, namely that all members of the community have > ideas and knowledge, especially about their own worlds. The same way that > the teacher is not the owner of the Truth, so the actors and directors (i > there is one - through my workshops actors direct themselves) are not the > owners of the Truth of the situation they are presenting. If there is > someone unfamiliar with Boal's Forum Theatre, the idea is following: actors > prepare a scene. The scene has to present (in any form - from musical to > ballet and realism, up to 30 mins in length) a problem that came from the > experiences of the actors and the community. There is a protagonist who > wants to fight for his or hers right, but is ultimately defeated by the > antagonist who's will is aided by the system of oppression. The examples of > the plays I worked on include a Roma child being falsely accused of > stealing money in the classroom; a working class child being bullied > because she doesn't own an Iphone, a girl getting hit by a boy she was > hooking up with because she changed her mind at one point, a girl pressured > by the society and her social group to dress "sexy" and then cyberbullied > for being a "whore", and many dozenth more. The scene is then presented in > the classroom to the students as audience, and the Joker (a facilitator) > asks the students following: can this happen in your experience? do you see > a problem? how do you define the problem? what are the roles - who is > oppressed, who is the oppressor? do you want to see the scene end > differently? and finally, what would you do? The audience is invited to > stop the replay in any moment, ask questions to the characters and enter in > the play, take place of protagonist (or tritagonist) and try to find as > many solutions as possible. There are no prearranged scripts or rules > (other than not using the magical solutions and avoiding violence). > Everything is directed back to the audience - they choose to participate or > not, they even define if there is a problem in the first place (out of > several hundreds performances only twice the audience decided that there > was no problem (both times because "girl deserved to be cyberbullied > because she wore a short skirt"). In the first case the whole class agreed, > and we didn't continue the performance - instead we had an open disussion > in the group. Int he second, a third of the audience didn't want to > continue - they moved to the back of the class, and allowed to return to > the audience if they changed their minds, which some of them did). > > In my experience, that form of theatre is often the most dialogic education > the students have experienced. Unfortunately, that isn't so hard - schools > in my country have quite rigid infrastructure, and the teacher education > only rarely involves any critical pedagogy. I found that the unapologetic > dialogic nature of the Boal's theatre informed my own practice of teaching > at the university (I've managed to teach subjects such as "Psychological > approaches to the Theory of Art" almost entirely through dialogic form). > Also, the feedback we get from the teachers and the students themselves, > especially the ones who went through the workshops and preformed their > plays to different audiences, is that they started to interact differently > in the classrooms - they started asking questions and initiating dialogue. > We also organize the workshops for teachers, and that experience empowers > them to approach more openly to their teaching practice. > > All in all, concerning this particular form of theatre, in my particular > experience, in my particular part of the world, not only do I find that it > fits in the dialogic education paradigm, but that is serves as the entry > point for the dialogue in general, in the educational setting. > > I very much look forward to the continuation of this conversation! > > Josipa > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:42 AM wrote: > >> As I read Ana?s entry into this genre exploring drama and dialogue through >> the leverage gained through the symbolic personification of the >> *spoilsport* I sensed her opening a conversation on various *structures >> of consciousness*. On page 51 Ana explores the question of what becomes >> *suspended* [belief or disbelief]. In other words the thematic of the >> relation of reality to the imaginal, the fictional, and the illusional and >> our ways of evaluating what we take on faith to be believed. >> >> If the *spoilsport* is imagined as a *structure of consciousness* in the >> form of a symbolic personification describing the *character* of this >> person/icon then we can ask why Ana is captured by this persona? >> Ana values this person because s/he shatters the play-world *itself* by >> withdrawing from this game. In the act of *withdrawing* this person REVEALS >> the relativity and fragility of these play-worlds.The spoilsport robs play >> of its *illusion*. >> >> Ana then focuses on the this word *illusion* calling it a pregnant word. >> Illusion means *literally* [in-play from illusio, illudere, inludere]. >> This structure of consciousness trespasses against the rules, and threatens >> the existence of the play community. >> This *figure* shatters and transfigures [even annihilates] what is assumed >> to be true [and natural]. This figure REVEALS different points of view >> through withdrawing and in the process of withdrawing opens a space/zone of >> new boundaries on the other side of the horizon of the taken for granted >> limits of shared reality. >> >> Now how does Ana identify the figure/person of the spoilsport? She >> identifies this *structure of consciousness* with what are called >> apostates, heretics, innovators, prophets, conscientious objectors, etc. >> Then Ana makes the case that this structure of consciousness is de/valued >> in both the world of high seriousness and the world of play. However, this >> same structure of consciousness is highly valued in critical dialogue as >> the *spark* that ignites or generates the dialogue which puts BOTH the >> illusion and the real to the test. >> >> >> Now Susan in taking her turn says that in process drama the spoilsport is >> not devalued but is INCLUDED in the play-world and is welcomed when wanting >> to **withdraw* from the play-world. This structure of consciousness can be >> *incorporated* within the place/zone or horizon of the dramatic. >> >> This genre exploring faith, belief, meaning, illusion, fiction, literal, >> metaphorical and their relations to what is considered real and *authentic* >> traverses multiple structures of consciousness and how we include or >> exclude the spoilsport remains an open question. There are other *figures* >> or *characters* personifying other structures of consciousness. >> >> This will take us far afield from the exploration of this particular >> personification but I will just mention in passing the figure of Hermes, >> who is the trickster. He may be as significant a person in play-worlds as >> the spoilsport. >> >> Sent from Mail for Windows >> >> From: Susan Davis >> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:30 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning >> possibilities >> >> Hi Mike, >> Our apologies for posting >> what appears as a formal response to Ana?s article. I guess our main >> concerns relate to her setting >> up multiples fields of scholarship and practice as ?drama in education? >> which >> are then critiqued in a negative and oppositional to dialogic pedagogy >> using terms such as ?irreconcilable?. >> >> >> In terms of the ?spoilsport' article >> itself we have real concerns about certain features of the scholarship of >> it. Firstly we are >> concerned with the use of a 1955 quote with no credence in our field being >> used >> to underpin the premise and inference that in drama education those who >> don?t >> with to participate or hold different views are labeled spoilsports and >> cast >> out. >> Secondly we are concerned >> about the evidence being used to support such claims being the comparison >> of >> two examples which have no common basis for comparison (a short extract >> from a >> highly edited commercial film of a drama with children, compared to an >> account >> of various events related to discussions in a teacher education course) >> Thirdly we feel that >> opinion has been used to make assertions about a lack of critical student >> voice >> and power in drama, when decades of research have now demonstrated >> otherwise. >> >> >> Ironically with Ana?s positioning there appears >> to be no room for dialogue about what might be possible in conceiving of a >> pedagogy >> that may be described as being both dramatic and dialogic. In the dialogic >> pedagogy paradigm Ana seems to subscribe to, it also appears there is no >> room >> for any positive dialogue, any shifts or resolutions, but almost that >> dialogue must >> begin with and maintain resistant and oppositional positions. She also >> seems >> to see no possibility for dialogic pedagogy through working within >> dramatic ?imaginary? >> frames if the teacher or facilitator has had anything to do with >> determining >> the starting point or framing. I guess our response then to the article >> is that it just makes us feel really quite sad, as we have seen the >> benefits of such a pedagogy and embrace opportunities for its continual >> re-examination and renewal. >> >> However, as far as we are concerned? the door is still open... >> >> >> Kind regards >> Sue & Brian. >> >> >> >> On 1/03/2016 11:28 am, "mike cole" wrote: >> >>> Susan et al. >>> >>> I have not commented on this discussion because events have prevented me >>> from watching the film and reading the relevant papers. I am very >>> interested in drama so I hope I can catch up at some point. >>> >>> I comment now only on the genre of the discussion. Susan and Brian have >>> posted a next turn in the conversation that began after Ana posted her >>> paper and posed what appears to be two different ideas about the role of >>> drama in education. But it is a special kind of next turn because it is >>> responding on xmca where Ana is Ana and not Marjanovic-Shane. >>> >>> I would not want the formal tone of Marjanovic-Shane and footnotes to >>> allow >>> us to think we have slipped from the realm of collegial chatting into the >>> realm of refereed journal articles! >>> >>> I really appreciate all the work that went into the formal reply, and it >>> made me wonder just what it is that Susan, Brian, and Ana appear to be >>> disagreeing over. >>> >>> Without looking, I expected the big issue to be whether or not kids >>> entering into dramatic activity at school, whatever its venue, have the >>> power to change the plot. But it seems much more is involved. >>> >>> If I could only get myself disentangled in this darn 5th Dimension I live >>> in, I would have a chance to catch up, but one thing keeps leading to >>> another....... >>> >>> Dialogically and Dramatically Speaking >>> mike >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Susan Davis wrote: >>> >>>> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for >>>> educational purposes we wish to >>>> respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in >>>> drama in >>>> education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our >>>> shared >>>> professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that >>>> we >>>> hope >>>> will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. >>>> At >>>> the >>>> same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we >>>> regard >>>> as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. >>>> >>>> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified >>>> field named ?drama in education? that would extend to >>>> those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth >>>> as >>>> claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we >>>> are >>>> knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a >>>> classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or >>>> ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, >>>> and >>>> dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice >>>> have arisen from very different communities in progressive >>>> school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all >>>> of >>>> whom >>>> independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. >>>> There >>>> have >>>> only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see >>>> for >>>> example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? >>>> < >>>> >>>> >> http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257 >>>> 6 >>>> 910/> which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and >>>> concern. As with >>>> those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look >>>> forward to >>>> more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and >>>> approaches >>>> which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning >>>> processes. >>>> >>>> There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the >>>> dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely >>>> helpful. >>>> However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that >>>> any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are >>>> irreconcilable >>>> paradigmatic >>>> differences between these pedagogical approaches. >>>> >>>> In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for >>>> using >>>> drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play >>>> the >>>> ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and >>>> enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such >>>> social >>>> agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is >>>> little >>>> difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of >>>> everyday >>>> life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing >>>> to >>>> participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of >>>> possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the >>>> activation of ?what if? in action. >>>> >>>> Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a >>>> group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing >>>> life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work >>>> together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or >>>> concern; >>>> there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. >>>> >>>> Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose >>>> not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. >>>> Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed >>>> dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being >>>> ?trapped? >>>> by a >>>> teacher with no exit in sight. Nor does it mean that a teacher would >>>> label >>>> someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many >>>> practical >>>> sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have >>>> later >>>> chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a >>>> group >>>> ready to ?discipline? them. Just as a person who does not join a theatre >>>> group >>>> cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play >>>> with others >>>> may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means >>>> that >>>> a >>>> person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of >>>> events >>>> in an imagined world. >>>> >>>> Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama >>>> session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to >>>> infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their >>>> choices >>>> and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the >>>> keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power >>>> and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama >>>> conducted in the U.S., Heathcote >>>> worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an >>>> authoritarian >>>> position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their >>>> actions. >>>> When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event >>>> in a >>>> drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t >>>> happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). >>>> Even >>>> though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate >>>> the >>>> boys >>>> involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, >>>> drawing out >>>> significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with >>>> very >>>> alternative views from her own. >>>> >>>> Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is >>>> authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a >>>> fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to >>>> misuse >>>> her >>>> authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might >>>> participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has >>>> never >>>> been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) that is never our >>>> intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at >>>> times Heathcote >>>> can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within >>>> dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on >>>> authoritarian >>>> teacher positions. >>>> >>>> Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she >>>> intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their >>>> power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not >>>> bully or take away power from >>>> others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her >>>> commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an >>>> interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here >>>> Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching >>>> strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a >>>> position >>>> to >>>> ?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many >>>> romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of >>>> the >>>> democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making >>>> all >>>> the >>>> decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were >>>> highly >>>> interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved >>>> provocations and >>>> active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, >>>> constantly >>>> selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the >>>> students >>>> were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that >>>> would be meaningful >>>> in multiple ways for all participants. >>>> H >>>> eathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to >>>> create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect >>>> to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot >>>> increase >>>> the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because >>>> reflection >>>> is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). >>>> Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be >>>> recognized >>>> fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a >>>> situation, >>>> and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, >>>> p. 153). >>>> >>>> It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples >>>> of >>>> praxis in an apples >>>> and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama >>>> in >>>> education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for >>>> different >>>> purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a >>>> 45 >>>> year >>>> old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of >>>> exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently >>>> by >>>> the >>>> author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few >>>> minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not >>>> educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s >>>> out-of-role >>>> negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been >>>> labeled >>>> as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special >>>> school >>>> for >>>> youth. >>>> >>>> Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the >>>> children, including through her >>>> early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not >>>> want >>>> to >>>> do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in >>>> drama, >>>> participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that >>>> teachers do >>>> not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is >>>> ours. Heathcote?s >>>> intention in this session was to work with the children to create >>>> fictional experiences >>>> in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out >>>> ways >>>> in >>>> which they might outwit an authoritarian regime represented by her in >>>> role >>>> as a >>>> Nazi officer but further to reflect on an issue of importance to them: >>>> why >>>> might >>>> someone choose to dissent by becoming an informant and a collaborator? >>>> >>>> Marjanovic-Shane assumes that the purpose of drama in education is to >>>> ?socialize? participants whereas dialogic pedagogy seeks to >>>> ?deepen critical examinations of any aspect of life.? Whilst >>>> socialization >>>> may >>>> be a declared or implicit purpose there are drama practitioners across >>>> decades >>>> of work who would also share Marjanovic-Shane?s aim and who have >>>> extensively >>>> documented how participants working with a teacher may engage in >>>> extensive >>>> critical >>>> cultural analysis of how power operates in society (e.g. Medina & >>>> Campano, >>>> 2006; Enciso, 2011; O?Connor & Anderson, 2015). >>>> >>>> In summary, the explicit premise of Marjanovic-Shane?s >>>> argument is that drama work is non-dialogic because participants must >>>> participate in making a fictional world, which appears to be on the >>>> teachers? >>>> terms. This is an ill-informed representation of drama?s potential in >>>> the >>>> classroom. Decades of documentation and analysis would show otherwise . >>>> Marjanovic Shane seems to dismiss the imagined possibilities that can be >>>> explored through drama and unwilling to engage in dialogue about the >>>> different >>>> ways that drama could in fact be dialogic. Rather than being restricted >>>> to >>>> dialogue in the ?real? world with people sharing critical views, >>>> participants in >>>> drama can collaboratively test out multiple alternatives to what seems >>>> ?real? and >>>> fixed. In drama everyone can contribute dialogically to create different >>>> possible >>>> versions of reality, multiple possible outcomes, alternative viewpoints, >>>> and >>>> new understandings. The social and cultural power of drama is that >>>> people >>>> may >>>> change their views, understand more about themselves, others, and the >>>> world we >>>> live in. Surely that is what all good pedagogues would hope and desire. >>>> >>>> >>>> Susan Davis and Brian Edmiston >>>> Central Queensland University & The Ohio State University >>>> s.davis@cqu.edu.au, edmiston.1@osu.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> References >>>> Enciso, P. (2011). Storytelling in critical >>>> literacy pedagogy: Removing the walls between immigrant and >>>> non-immigrant >>>> youth. In H. Janks & V. Vasquez (Eds.) Special Issue: Critical Literacy >>>> Revisited: Writing as Critique for English Teaching: Practice and >>>> Critique, 10, 1, 21-40. >>>> Heathcote, D. (1984). Collected writings >>>> on education and drama. L. Johnson & C. O?Neill (Eds.). Melbourne: >>>> Hutchinson. >>>> Heathcote, >>>> D. (2002). Contexts for active learning - >>>> Four models to forge links between schooling and society. Paper >>>> presented >>>> at the NATD Annual Conference, Birmingham. >>>> >>>> >> http://www.moeplanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/dh-contexts-for-a >>>> ct >>>> ive-learning.pdf >>>> Medina, C. & Campano, G. (2006). Performing >>>> Identities through Drama and Teatro Practices in Multilingual >>>> Classrooms. >>>> Language Arts, 83 (4), 332-341. >>>> Turner, Victor (1974). Dramas, Fields, and >>>> Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell >>>> University >>>> Press. >>>> O?Connor, P. & Anderson, M. (2015). Applied Theatre Research: Radical >>>> Departures. >>>> London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama. >>>> O?Neill, C. >>>> (2014) Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices. in P. Bowell, >>>> P & >>>> C. >>>> Lawrence (Eds), Heathcote Reconsidered - >>>> Conference Echoes (ebook), London: National Drama, 13-31 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29/02/2016 7:49 am, "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Sue, >>>>> >>>>> I am looking forward to your feedback and critique. >>>>> >>>>> Ana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Susan Davis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Larry, Helen and Ana for your comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> Helen - always lovely to find out who else is out there exploring the >>>>>> possibilities of working with the arts to bring about transformative >>>>>> learning and Larry I really like that proposition that in drama the >>>>>> premise begins with ?I can? and then moves to ?I think?. That is >>>> very >>>>>> much the case with drama, and sometimes children/participants are >>>> very >>>>>> nervous or uncertain when they begin a drama process, often because >>>> they >>>>>> begin from a position of ?I can?t? but through the acts of doing they >>>>>> begin to see that they in fact can do and become. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ana I would agree with the first part of your statement about drama >>>> in >>>>>> education being used to help socialise students into socially >>>> recognised >>>>>> valuable practices and would think that was a good thing given >>>> research >>>>>> that shows reductions in empathy in young people in recent times. I >>>>>> have >>>>>> concerns with the rest of your proposition and the sweeping nature of >>>>>> the >>>>>> critique. >>>>>> >>>>>> A colleague and I have been preparing a short response to your >>>> article >>>>>> and >>>>>> I will check with him to see if he is happy for me to post it here. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would of course be happy to hear other ?dialogue? as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Sue >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 29/02/2016 2:35 am, "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for starting this thread about drama in education. I recently >>>>>>> published a paper that takes a critical stance toward Heathcote's >>>>>>> drama in >>>>>>> education approach and other approaches to education that are based >>>> on >>>>>>> some form of drama, play and/or improv - *"Spoilsport" in Drama in >>>>>>> education vs dialogic pedagogy*. >>>>>>> To play a "spoilsport" myself, in this paper, I claim that Drama in >>>>>>> Education belongs to an educational paradigm that is mainly based on >>>>>>> socialization of students into the socially recognized valuable >>>>>>> practices, >>>>>>> values and understanding of the world, which are heavily based on >>>>>>> agreement, collaboration and following of the authority, without >>>>>>> students >>>>>>> having legitimate rights and a possibilities to critically disagree, >>>>>>> provide different points of view and question the existing social >>>>>>> practices, values and ways of understanding the world. In other >>>> words, >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> this educational paradigm - students' disenssus, critical approach >>>> to >>>>>>> testing different ideas, views, desires, values, etc. is actively >>>>>>> suppressed, or at best limited, curbed and restricted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the paper I provide a detailed analysis of (a part of) the same >>>>>>> video >>>>>>> posted here earlier - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw. >>>>>>> Below >>>>>>> is the abstract of my paper. If interested - you can get it at >>>> Dialogic >>>>>>> Pedagogy Journal website - >>>>>>> http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/151 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, what do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ >>>>>>> "Spoilsport" in Drama in education vs dialogic pedagogy >>>>>>> Abstract >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this paper two educational paradigms that both attempt to >>>> overcome >>>>>>> alienation often experienced by students in the conventional >>>> education. >>>>>>> These two educational paradigms are embodied in different >>>> educational >>>>>>> practices: First, Drama in Education in its widest definition, is >>>>>>> based on >>>>>>> the Vygotskian views that human cognitive, semantic >>>> (meaning-making), >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> social-emotional development happens in or through play and/or >>>>>>> imagination, >>>>>>> thus within the imagined worlds. Second, Critical Ontological >>>> Dialogic >>>>>>> Pedagogy, is based in the Bakhtin inspired approach to critical >>>>>>> dialogue >>>>>>> among the ?consciousnesses of equal rights? (Bakhtin, 1999), where >>>>>>> education is assumed to be a practice of examination of the world, >>>> the >>>>>>> others and the self. I reveal implicit and explicit conceptual >>>>>>> similarities >>>>>>> and differences between these two educational paradigms regarding >>>> their >>>>>>> understanding the nature of learning; social values that they >>>> promote; >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> group dynamics, social relationships and the position of learners? >>>>>>> subjectivity. I aim to uncover the role and legitimacy of the >>>> learners? >>>>>>> disagreement with the positions of others, their dissensus with the >>>>>>> educational events and settings, and the relationships of power >>>> within >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> social organization of educational communities in these two diverse >>>>>>> educational approaches. I explore the legitimacy of dissensus in >>>> these >>>>>>> two >>>>>>> educational approaches regarding both the participants? critical >>>>>>> examination of the curriculum, and in regard to promoting the >>>>>>> participants? >>>>>>> agency and its transformations. In spite of important similarities >>>>>>> between >>>>>>> the educational practices arranged by these two paradigms, the >>>>>>> analysis of >>>>>>> their differences points to the paradigmatically opposing views on >>>>>>> human >>>>>>> development, learning and education. Although both Drama in >>>> Education >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> Dialogic Pedagogy claim to deeply, fully and ontologically engage >>>> the >>>>>>> learners in the process of education, they do it for different >>>> purposes >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> with diametrically opposite ways of treating the students and their >>>>>>> relationship to the world, each other and their own developing >>>> selves. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 +61 418 763 428 >>>> L https://www.linkedin.com/in/suedavisnoosa >>>> RG | https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan_Davis7 >>>> Profile | http://profiles.cqu.edu.au/profiles/view/272 >>>> Latest >>>> publication: >>>> >>>> >> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and-praxi >>>> s/ >>>> learning-that-matters/ >>>> >>>> >>>> This communication may contain privileged or confidential information. >>>> If >>>> you have received this in error, >>>> please return to sender and delete. CRICOS: 00219C | RTO Code 40939 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>> object >>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >> >> From anamshane@gmail.com Tue Mar 1 08:42:40 2016 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:42:40 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> Dear Larry, I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the ideas I started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right that I use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time, space and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and expectations that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial and temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the literary work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we always ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate to each other in a different way - depending on a situation. You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in different situations - depending on the relationship in which these chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that when the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard, potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) to ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the imagined and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. In that sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the reality as a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to draw the boundary between them. I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? What do you think? Ana > On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > Ana, > In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing chrono/topes. > * community of players (CoPl) > * reality (RC) or ontological > * imagined (IC) > > Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a chronotopic theme. > There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its opposite. > Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. Chronotopes. > Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar opposites in your horizon of understanding. > A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of players chronotopes. > > I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar opposites. > This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the other side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. > The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking > Larry > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 12:41 AM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities > > Dear Sue and Brian and all, > > > > First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I take your response very seriously. I have some questions for clarification and also some more comments regarding what I think is a ?paradigmatic difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two approaches to education that I outlined in my paper. > > Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! > > > > Ana > > > > > > __________ > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis wrote: > > As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. > > We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from very different communities in progressive school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and concern. > > ANA: Yes! This is what I also addressed in my article: I defined ?Drama in Education? for the purposes of my article exactly that way ? many different approaches ?all of whom independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice?. > > As with those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look forward to more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and approaches which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning processes. > > There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely helpful. However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are irreconcilable paradigmatic differences between these pedagogical approaches. > > In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for using drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play the ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such social agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is little difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of everyday life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing to participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the activation of ?what if? in action. > > Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern; there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. > > Ana: In my view ? there are several planes (or to use Bakhtin?s concept - ?chronotopes?) of meaning making in all educational events. Above, you are referring to two of them: a) group relationships and group dynamics of the co-authors: ?when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events?; and b) ?meaning making? ? I assume that you refer here to what each participant understands about the created dramatic world. > > I want to stress that in my article I was describing precisely these group relationships rather than the participants? understanding of an imaginary dramatic world. What I claim in my article is that there are fundamentally different group relationships, i.e. that the pedagogical chronotope (not the dramatic world) in which the participants of drama in education live, is fundamentally different from the pedagogical chronotope in which the participants of dialogic pedagogy live. In drama in education, the consensus about ?dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern?- is necessary in order to build this particular dramatization. On the other hand, in dialogic pedagogy such consensus about what is "a particular storyline, topic or concern" ? is not necessary at all. In fact, I claim that the most productive and the most welcome aspect of dialogic pedagogy is the very dissent about what is being ?discussed? in the first place. > > Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being ?trapped? by a teacher with no exit in sight. > > Ana: I would respectfully disagree here. This phrase and understanding of what should be taking place in drama in education, comes directly from Dorothy Heathcote. I actually just quoted her in my paper: ?The proper tools of drama are emotional reaction and the state of being trapped, a state from which one can escape only by working through the situation.? (Heathcote, Collected writings on drama in education, 1984, p. 91, italics mine). > > Nor does it mean that a teacher would label someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many practical sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have later chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a group ready to ?discipline? them. > > Ana: My arguments about the explicit and implicit values of the drama in education approach are actually based exactly on this point: In my view, if a person is under a threat of being ?disciplined? just because they disagree with the majority ? either by openly opposing their opinions, or their ways of acting, or by withdrawing collaboration, and if such opposition is not supported and addressed by the teacher as a legitimate and a serious bid to differ ? then the group regime and the pedagogical approach are, in fact, not dialogic, but rather monologic and, yes, authoritarian! If a teacher has to protect someone from the others in a group that wants to ?discipline? him/her, then the group values that prevail are based on ?who ever is not with us ? is against us?. Doesn?t that mean that there is no active pedagogical support of dissensus? > > Just as a person who does not join a theatre group cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play with others may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means that a person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of events in an imagined world. > > Ana: Exactly! Thus this person?s ideas, reasons, points of view, desires, values, etc. are not pedagogically engaged. This person is NOT within the pedagogical scope of this approach. This is, actually, what means to be ?cast out? from a pedagogical event ? the person is just NOT IN. They are OUT. Moreover, this is also often interpreted as that person?s (bad) choice! (As you say ? ?a preschool child choosing not to play.?) > > Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their choices and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama conducted in the U.S., Heathcote worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an authoritarian position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their actions. When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event in a drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). Even though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate the boys involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with very alternative views from her own. > > > Ana: Since you describe it, I want to briefly analyze this case ? Heathcote?s 2007 drama workshop in NYC. In my view, it actually presents more evidence for the hypothesis I developed in my article. (I am attaching O?Neil?s keynote address to this e-mail - for the curious ones) > > In my analysis of the event you outlined above (fully described by O?Neil), three major questions/comments come to mind: > > 1) First: If in Drama in Education approach students can dialogically contribute to creating an imaginary world (as you claim) ? offering their own opinions, ideas and positions, then why would a teacher ever be in a situation to ?castigate students for their actions? ? in the first place? What was ?wrong? with ?blowing up a celebratory event? in the imaginary world? Why were the others in the room [graduate students who observed Dorothy?s master class] horrified? Shouldn?t the spectators be actually very curious about this sudden turn of the events in the imaginary world, which at that point is being truly collaboratively created? > > 2) Second, O?Neil's very detailed and documented description of Heathcote?s workshop in 2007 - testifies to a subversive resistance of the several boys ? and their constant attempts to resist Dorothy?s pre-set plan of this imaginary world. This unacknowledged, yet very felt resistance, at the end of the workshop lead to their ?sabotage? of Dorothy?s invented world ? by ?blowing it up?. As O?Neil writes: > > ?One of the graduate students noted in her journal: > > Noel and his buddies are constantly scheming and plotting and indulging in behaviour which some teachers might consider destructive. However it?s clear to me that their purpose is not to destroy or sabotage the work but to remain within the rules which have already have been established.? (O?Neil, Power sharing ? teacher power and student?s choices, 2014, p. 20, italics mine) > > My questions/comments here are about the legitimacy of the students? genuine contributions to making of the imaginary world. From the testimony of an observer (a graduate student), it seems that the boys? contributions were limited to Dorothy?s pre-set frame, and that their attempts to change that imaginary frame were in fact not legitimate for the students - but perceived as ?constant scheming and plotting and indulging in behavious which some teachers might consider destructive". That is exactly what I claimed in my article. > > 3) Finally, O?Neil also describes how Dorothy reacted to this imaginary bomb: > ?But Dorothy took this moment and grounded it in reality. As the bomb happened Heathcote?s response was: > > Just now you have echoed an interview I heard on your local radio this very day, with a young Muslim radical. He said, ?I will kill when the Mullah tells me. It will be the will of Allah. I do not care who will die.?? (p. 95) > > In my analysis, Dorothy?s reaction in that moment was extremely angry and punitive. She addresses the boys not any more within the imaginary world, but ?grounded in reality.? She compares them ? the 8th grade boys ? to the terrorists, who could say ?I do not care who will die?. Thus, she openly blames the boys for what they did to ?her world? - they destroyed it. They were spoilsports! > > However, in spite the fact that Dorothy compared the acts of these 8th grade boys within a dramatic world to the actual terrorists - meaning it FOR REAL (grounded in reality), everyone (grad students, other drama educators, Cecily O?Neil, etc.) praises Heathcote!! They praise her for not ?telling the students off?, for being able to withhold her anger and her outright punishment. No one is taken aback with her anger which shows its dark face in her aggressive and vindictive dubbing the boys as ?young Muslim radicals who can say - I do not care who will die? ? dubbing them not as fictional characters in the play ? but ?grounded in reality?!!! > > I think that the actual ?chronotope? of drama in education pedagogy calls for being ?horrified? with such an open dissent and calls for some kind of ?castigating the boys?. > > As you say further: > > > Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to misuse her authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has never been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) > > Ana: yes, I do. > > that is never our intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at times Heathcote can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on authoritarian teacher positions. > > > Ana: I respectfully disagree -- the case above does not support your assumption. > > Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not bully or take away power from others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a position to ?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of the democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making all the decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were highly interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved provocations and active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, constantly selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the students were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that would be meaningful in multiple ways for all participants. > > Ana: I agree with you that Heathcote was a master in creating very intricate, multilayered, and incredibly complex worlds in which she would involve the students in very collaborative and meaningful ways. I also agree that there is a lot of room for creativity in such a setting, and especially when Dorothy Heathcote created it, since she herself was incredibly creative in making the fictional worlds for the students. But, these dramatic worlds were HER worlds ? not the students? worlds. The students were welcome ? but they were never co-authors of these worlds as ?consciousnesses of equal rights? - among whom a meaningful dialogue can happen. Their contributions to these worlds were appreciated by her only as long as they agreed with Dorothy?s own vision. The students were invited to explore and investigate Dorothy?s worlds ? but not to co-create them as equals and co-authors. In that sense, dialogues within these worlds were dialogues of ?the heroes?, who were invented and created by Dorothy as an author ? I draw here on Bakhtin?s analysis of the author-hero relationships ? where the author is the one who has a ?surplus of vision? and knows more than his/her characters. Because of that, a genuine authorial contribution of a student is limited, and the students? own positions, ideas, desires, values, intentions, etc. ? are not examined as such: they can only serve in the function of creating this dramatic word ? of which they are not the owners. The focus, in other words, is not on what the students genuinely think, understand, desire, value, etc., and why, but the focus is on how well has this imaginary world been built. Can the students learn in that situation. Of course. Can they critically test their own ideas, values, desires, postions? Perhaps, but it is out of the focus and scope of the dramatic world. > > Heathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot increase the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because reflection is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be recognized fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a situation, and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, p. 153). > > It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples of praxis in an apples and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama in education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for different purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a 45 year old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently by the author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s out-of-role negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been labeled as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special school for youth. > > Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the children, including through her early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not want to do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in drama, participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that teachers do not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is ours. Heathcote?s intention in this session was to work with the children to create fictional experiences in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out ways in which they might outwit an authoritarian > > > [The entire original message is not included.] From ewall@umich.edu Tue Mar 1 09:16:01 2016 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:16:01 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Heathcote and Immagination In-Reply-To: References: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> Message-ID: <8B7D4F7E-4C09-48D4-A43E-11564B179A5F@umich.edu> 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-praxi >>> 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.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 >>>> minutes into this. >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw >>> >>> >> >> > > From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Tue Mar 1 09:55:26 2016 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 12:55:26 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Heathcote and Immagination In-Reply-To: <4C1392F0-E56F-49F7-8246-7E61A04C6D4C@umich.edu> References: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> <4C1392F0-E56F-49F7-8246-7E61A04C6D4C@umich.edu> Message-ID: Hi Mike and Ed, Thanks for your queries and comments on Maxine Greene. Her contribution to the field is focused more on social imagination rather than the commodified and indivualistic versions of neoliberal R and D departments. Here are a few quotes the offer a window into what she meant by this concept. The link to more of her work is in the box below. My doctoral studies were predicated on her work along with Vera John-Steiner's and since then I have found many connections to LSV and the socio-cultural aspects of consciousness that are so wonderfully represented in the extended XCMA community. Robert Lake *We also have our social imagination: the capacity to invent visions of what should be and what might be in our deficient society, on the streets where we live, in our schools. As I write of social imagination, I am reminded of Jean-Paul Sartre?s **declaration that ?it is on the day that we can conceive of a different state of affairs that a new light falls on our troubles and our suffering and that we decide that these are unbearable?* - Maxine Greene: *Releasing the Imagination*. (p. 5). *"Our very realization that the individual does not precede community may summon up images of relation, of the networks of concern in which we teachers still do our work and, as we do so, create and recreate ourselves. More and more of us, for all our postmodern preoccupations, are aware of how necesary it is to keep such visions of possibility before our eyes in the face of rampant carelessness and alteration and fragmentation.* *If is out of this kind of thinking, I still believe, that the ground of a critical community can be opened in our teaching and in our schools. It is out of such thinking that public spaces may be regained. The challenge is to make the ground palpable and visible to our students, to make possible the interplay of multiple plurality of consciousnesses --- and their recalcitrances and their resistances, along with their affirmations, their "songs of love." And, yes, it is to work for responsiveness to principles of equity, principles of equality, and principles of freedom, which still can be named within contexts of caring and concern. The principles and the contexts have to be chosen by living human beings against their own life-worlds and in the light of their lives with others, by persons able to call, to say, to sing, and -- using their imaginations, tapping their courage -- to transform."* - Maxine Greene, *Releasing the Imagination**, *pp. 197-198. On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > Mike > > I?m not entirely positive which discussion you are referring below, > but, although I probably have it, I don?t have it pulled out. > > Also I?m not entirely sure what questions you say are left hanging; > questions sometimes have a way of being answered (smile). > > Interesting you mention Maxine Greene as, in a way, what I consider > as the most relevant of her writings here was early and titled ?The Teacher > as Stranger.? However, that is my perspective on these things. > > I?m not quite ready for "drama and imagination" although I would be > fine, in the interim, with "teacher and imagination.? > > I have, perhaps, a few things of interest to say in my reply to > Susan which I will get to later today. > > Ed > > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 7:53 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > Seems like the section on imagination you mention, Susan, fits right in > > with that thread of xmca discussion. Linking drama and imagination seems > > essential to me and you mention several who have done so effectively. You > > also remind me to go back and re-read Maxine Greene! Now I am further > > behind than ever. Better stop reading. :-) > > > > Ed, do you have that discussion pulled out and re-examined. It left a LOT > > of questions unanswered. > > > > Maybe we need a header called drama and imagination? > > > > If so, I vote we add Raymond Williams to the discussion. > > mike > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:39 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-praxi > >>>> 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.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake P. O. Box 8144 Phone: (912) 478-0355 Fax: (912) 478-5382 Statesboro, GA 30460 *If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather the wood or divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea- *Antoine de Saint Exupery (1948). From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Mar 1 11:18:42 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:18:42 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: new issue del Rio & Alvarez In-Reply-To: <45546.213.143.48.67.1456857686.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> References: <45546.213.143.48.67.1456857686.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Interesting people writing about an interesting topic for readers of Spanish mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: REVISTA PAPELES DE TRABAJO SOBRE CULTURA, EDUCACI?N Y DESARROLLO HUMANO Date: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:41 AM Subject: new issue del Rio & Alvarez To: revista.ptcedh@udg.edu Ya se encuentra disponible el ?ltimo n?mero de la revista "Papeles de Trabajo sobre Cultura, Educaci?n y Desarrollo Humano": Del R?o, P. y ?lvarez, A. (2016). Y el Verbo se hizo carne? Una aproximaci?n eco-vygotskiana a la adquisici?n del lenguaje. Papeles de Trabajo sobre Cultura, Educaci?n y Desarrollo Humano, 12(1), 1-21. En el siguiente enlace encontraran el texto completo en .pdf y el video-resumen: http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/articulo.asp?id=2 ? Esperamos disfruten de la lectura ! --------------------------------------------------------------- The new issue of the journal "Working Papers on Culture, Education and Human Development" is now available: Del R?o, P. y ?lvarez, A. (2016). The Word was made flesh... An eco-vygotskian approach to language acquisition. Papeles de Trabajo sobre Cultura, Educaci?n y Desarrollo Humano, 12(1), 1-21. You can Access to the full paper in .pdf and videoabstract: http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/article.asp?id=2 We wish you an exciting reading ! --- Comit? editorial / Editorial Board Papeles de Trabajo sobre Cultura Educaci?n y Desarrollo Humano http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/Presentacion.asp Working Papers on Culture, Education and Human Development http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/presentation.asp Email: revista.ptcedh@udg.edu -- 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 Mar 1 11:24:11 2016 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 19:24:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: new issue del Rio & Alvarez In-Reply-To: References: <45546.213.143.48.67.1456857686.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu>, Message-ID: <1456860252385.35561@iped.uio.no> Gracias por compartir! Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 01 March 2016 20:18 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: new issue del Rio & Alvarez Interesting people writing about an interesting topic for readers of Spanish mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: REVISTA PAPELES DE TRABAJO SOBRE CULTURA, EDUCACI?N Y DESARROLLO HUMANO Date: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:41 AM Subject: new issue del Rio & Alvarez To: revista.ptcedh@udg.edu Ya se encuentra disponible el ?ltimo n?mero de la revista "Papeles de Trabajo sobre Cultura, Educaci?n y Desarrollo Humano": Del R?o, P. y ?lvarez, A. (2016). Y el Verbo se hizo carne? Una aproximaci?n eco-vygotskiana a la adquisici?n del lenguaje. Papeles de Trabajo sobre Cultura, Educaci?n y Desarrollo Humano, 12(1), 1-21. En el siguiente enlace encontraran el texto completo en .pdf y el video-resumen: http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/articulo.asp?id=2 ? Esperamos disfruten de la lectura ! --------------------------------------------------------------- The new issue of the journal "Working Papers on Culture, Education and Human Development" is now available: Del R?o, P. y ?lvarez, A. (2016). The Word was made flesh... An eco-vygotskian approach to language acquisition. Papeles de Trabajo sobre Cultura, Educaci?n y Desarrollo Humano, 12(1), 1-21. You can Access to the full paper in .pdf and videoabstract: http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/article.asp?id=2 We wish you an exciting reading ! --- Comit? editorial / Editorial Board Papeles de Trabajo sobre Cultura Educaci?n y Desarrollo Humano http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/Presentacion.asp Working Papers on Culture, Education and Human Development http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/presentation.asp Email: revista.ptcedh@udg.edu -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From smago@uga.edu Tue Mar 1 11:45:47 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 19:45:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?windows-1252?q?FW=3A_can=27t_make_this_stuff_up=3A_Students_us?= =?windows-1252?q?e_=93Trump=94_as_racial_slur=2C_chant_it_at_basketball_g?= =?windows-1252?q?ames?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I?m not sure if this news story has any place in our discussions, but I had to share it with someone. p Students use ?Trump? as racial slur, chant it at basketball games By Maureen Downey March 1, 2016 | Filed in: Bullying, Culture and schools, Discipline, Diversity, Ethics I am not sure whether to be impressed teenagers are paying any attention to national politics or depressed over the decline of civility in sports. In recent athletic contests in two states, students taunted opponents from schools with higher Latino-American enrollment either by chanting ?Trump, Trump? or holding up a poster of the Republican presidential candidate and yelling ?Build the wall.? [In this Friday, Feb. 26, 2016 photo, the Andrean High School student section holds up a picture of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump during their school's basketball game against Bishop Noll Institute in Merrillville, Ind. The Catholic bishop in northern Indiana denounced the students who waved the picture of Trump and shouted "build a wall" at their opponents, a heavily Hispanic school in nearby Hammond. (Jonathan Miano/The Times via AP) CHICAGO LOCALS OUT; GARY OUT; MANDATORY CREDIT] On Friday, Andrean High School students held up a picture of Donald Trump during a basketball game against Bishop Noll in Merrillville, Ind., and shouted ?build a wall? at their opponents, a heavily Hispanic school. (Jonathan Miano/The Times via AP) The first incident occurred in Indiana and involved a basketball game between two Catholic schools, Bishop Noll and Andrean. (As a graduate of a Catholic high school, Mother Seton Regional, Sister Margaret Irene or Sister Regina would have silenced this stuff with a single glance. And their disapproving glance would have turned you to stone.) According to the Times of Northwest Indiana: A student from Andrean brought a large photo of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump?s head to the game. During the game, some Andrean students began chanting to the Bishop Noll students across the gym ?Build a wall,? which was followed by the Noll students chanting ?You?re a racist.? In a statement from the Diocese of Gary, Bishop Donald J. Hying said: ?The incident continues to be under investigation by school officials and is being taken very seriously. Any actions or words that can be perceived as racist or derogatory to others are antithetical to the Christian faith and will not be tolerated in any of our institutions. It was the furthest thing from anyone?s mind that such actions would be happening at a gathering of two of our Catholic high schools. This is not what we teach our students. Jesus is at the center of all we do and his message was and is one of inclusion and respect for all people. I take this incident to heart and again state that it is not to be tolerated, even as a childish prank.? The second incident occurred in Des Moines, Iowa, where students from Dallas Center-Grimes High chanted ?Trump! Trump!? after a boys? basketball game. Students from the mostly white school were apparently unhappy to lose to Perry High School, which has greater student diversity. According to the Des Moines Register: No Perry varsity players are Latino, the team?s coach, Ned Menke, said, but 48 percent of the student body population is a minority, according to Perry school leaders. {Dallas Center-Grimes High Activities director Steve} Watson said the Trump chants came from 10 to 15 individuals of the 100- to 120-member student section. He estimated the chant was yelled ?four or five times.? ?When they saw me come down the bleachers, they knew it was wrong,? Watson said. ?As an administrator you?d like to think you wouldn?t even have to tell them to stop, or they wouldn?t even start it.? Watson declined to discuss any disciplinary measures taken against the students participating in the chant, citing student privacy. ?Whenever anything turns personal or offensive, it?s out of line, and this is definitely out of line,? Watson said. ?Our kids know that. They knew it before. They chose to do it.? In a letter to the Perry High School Chief, the student newspaper, student Kevin Lopez wrote that yelling ?Trump? as a racial insult was becoming common, citing earlier instances where the Perry team experienced it. This time, apparently, the taunting also spread to social media. Dear Editor, This is a letter for the community of Perry. It is no secret that our great town is incredibly diverse, the student body and staff at Perry High School see this as an advantage and we come together as a town and celebrate our diversity. But, recently there has been a new chanting trend uprising at high school basketball games directed at us. Perry is competitive and we are known for being loud! We love a student section that can interact with us and make the atmosphere full of energy and keep the ambiance fun. We in the student body and community members who cheer on the Perry basketball team have been exposed to this new derogatory chant, ?Trump.? It is a chant said to intimidate and discriminate our Latino/Hispanic students and it is a chant that is fueled by racism. Monday night at the boys district game against DC-G in Adel, was the fourth instance this chant was heard. Monday night however was the first time we were exposed to such racism on social media, just to show how big of an issue this is actually becoming. We at Perry High School acknowledge and are aware of the fact that people are entitled to their own political views and that they are to be respected, but when a name is chanted in a racial manner and used to intimidate us is when the line is drawn. Perry has been a racial target for many towns for a long time now, and now I am tackling this problem. I urge that you stay alert to chants like ?Trump? or ?Mini-Mexico? and that you please take action. We know racism is alive and well, but we refuse to undergo discrimination at Iowa high school athletic events. I am happy students from Dallas Center-Grimes and Perry high schools have met to address the incident. You can read about the meeting here. Here is a quote from that account reflective of how these incivilities happen: Dallas Center-Grimes student body co-president Austin Kloewer was in the stands Monday night. ?There?s that feeling inside that this is wrong, but at the same time you don?t think of the big context, the feelings of the other side,? said Kloewer. [Should schools close when severe storms and tornadoes are in the forecast? (Travis Heying/The Wichita Eagle via AP)]Schools close for snow and cold. Do we need tornado days, too? Categories: Bullying, Culture and schools, Discipline, Diversity, Ethics Reader Comments 9 [Livefyre] [Peter_Smagorinsky] Peter_Smagorinsky + Follow Share Post comment Newest | Oldest [Wascatlady] Wascatlady 1 hour ago Well, we know what these kids hear around the dinner table, don't we? So, so sad. I hope the schools conduct reasonable, thorough investigations and then punish those who did this. And I hope the adults in the school examine the extracurriculum their students have learned. FlagShare LikeReply [MunsingLaw] MunsingLaw @MunsingLawfrom Twitter2h @ajc @NickKristof @latinorebels @NAACP @MALDEF @URJ#MakeAmericaHateAgain ? #TRump's "what, me? Worry? "approach to race+language=bigotry Reply on TwitterRetweetFavoriteFlagShare LikeReply [atlantatweeps] atlantatweeps @atlantatweepsfrom Twitter2h @ajc this about schools in Indiana not Georgia .... your anti-Trump bias is showing Reply on TwitterRetweetFavoriteFlagShare LikeReply [MaureenDowney] MaureenDowney moderator2 hours ago @atlantatweeps @ajc If you read this blog, you will know I often write about things happening outside Georgia. The prior blog this morning is about two other states closing schools for tornado forecasts. I have written about bullying in cases all over the country. Any that's clear in the blog title where it says: Your source to discuss and learn about education in Georgia and the nation and share opinions and news FlagShare 2[John Henry][AnsweredTHIS]LikeReply [HILUX] HILUX 1 hour ago @MaureenDowney @atlantatweeps @ajc No, try again. Your Primary Day headline is a ludicrously obvious attempt to smear Donald Trump. Which will no doubt be Hillary's fall strategy. FlagShare LikeReply [AnsweredTHIS] AnsweredTHIS 1 hour ago @atlantatweeps @ajc I took this as a story about being about children regardless of where it is based. The problem is nation wide and it rears it's ugly head not only in Indiana but look no further than what happened in Valdosta! It has nothing to do with Trump bias but everything to do with this man continuing to preach and teach hate. FlagShare LikeReply [HILUX] HILUX 3 hours ago Should we likewise attribute disruptions by #BlackLivesMatter activists to Hillary Clinton? Even when they too occur outside Georgia? FlagShare LikeReply [FredJohnsson] FredJohnsson 2 hours ago @HILUX If they shout the name "Hillary", then we would attribute that to Hillary. FlagShare LikeReply [AnsweredTHIS] AnsweredTHIS 1 hour ago @HILUX @HILUX Why do you people like you and your ilk always feel the need to digress and bring up a different topic when it is so evident that this story is about how these teenagers are learning hate and how to push it off on a population! Gosh you people always try to find a way to give balance when there is none! Just stop it! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 40768 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/32bf2b2f/attachment.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2561 bytes Desc: image002.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/32bf2b2f/attachment-0001.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 86 bytes Desc: image003.png Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/32bf2b2f/attachment.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 625 bytes Desc: image005.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/32bf2b2f/attachment-0002.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1611 bytes Desc: image006.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/32bf2b2f/attachment-0003.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: image007.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/32bf2b2f/attachment-0004.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1413 bytes Desc: image008.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/32bf2b2f/attachment-0005.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1696 bytes Desc: image009.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/32bf2b2f/attachment-0006.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1869 bytes Desc: image010.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/32bf2b2f/attachment-0007.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image011.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 944 bytes Desc: image011.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/32bf2b2f/attachment-0008.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image012.png Type: image/png Size: 174 bytes Desc: image012.png Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/32bf2b2f/attachment-0001.png From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Mar 1 11:57:16 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:57:16 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Request for Articles: Immigration and Identities: Race and Ethnicity in a Changing United States In-Reply-To: <300.0.15.AFD.1D173CE1CCB4B3A.5F140@me-ss2-vsujbl.mailengine1.com> References: <300.0.15.AFD.1D173CE1CCB4B3A.5F140@me-ss2-vsujbl.mailengine1.com> Message-ID: Seems like this might be a venue of interest to people on the two lists being forwarded to. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Russell Sage Foundation Date: Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:21 AM Subject: Request for Articles: Immigration and Identities: Race and Ethnicity in a Changing United States To: mcole@ucsd.edu Click here to view this message in a browser . [image: Image] *CALL FOR ARTICLESRSF: THE RUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION JOURNAL OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCESIMMIGRATION AND IDENTITIES: RACE AND ETHNICITY IN A CHANGING UNITED STATES* Edited by *KAY DEAUX* Graduate Center, CUNY and New York University *KATHARINE DONATO* Vanderbilt University *NANCY FONER* Hunter College and Graduate Center, CUNY In the last half century, the United States has undergone a profound demographic transformation in the wake of a massive inflow of immigrants. In 2014, immigrants represented approximately 13 percent of the U.S. population; together with their U.S. born children the figure was nearly 25 percent, a remarkable 80 million people. This growth in immigration, mainly from Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean, has altered the racial and ethnic composition of the nation. The non-Hispanic white population in the United States declined from 83 to 62 percent between 1970 and 2014, while the Hispanic population grew from 4 to 17 percent in the same period. Asians, less than one percent of the U.S. population in 1970, are now slightly more than five percent. Indeed, Asians are currently the fastest-growing immigrant group. The number of black immigrants (from Africa and the Caribbean) has also increased, with approximately one out of ten blacks in the United States now foreign-born. What is also notable in recent years is the geographic spread of immigrants away from traditional receiving states to new gateways, especially in the southern and midwestern United States. The result has been greater racial and ethnic diversity in a wide swath of urban and rural neighborhoods across the country. In seeking to understand the effects of the changing ethnic, racial, and immigrant-origin composition of the U.S. population and the growing racial/ethnic diversity throughout the country, this issue of *RSF* puts the spotlight on shifts in ethnic, racial and national identities, including the nature of these shifts and their implications. It has a three-pronged focus: (1) how those of immigrant origin as well as long-established natives have come to identify themselves in terms of race, ethnicity, and nationality; (2) how members of each group are viewed and categorized by others in terms of ethnicity and race; and (3) the impact of these identity processes on interactions among members of different ethnoracial groups. We invite proposals from scholars across a wide variety of social science disciplines, including anthropology, economics, geography, political science, psychology, sociology, and urban studies. We also welcome contributions based on qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, as well as large-scale national and/or small-scale studies. In addition, we are interested in proposals that bring together insights from, and aim to bridge the sometimes separate, existing literatures on race, ethnicity, and immigration. *Please click here for a full description of the topics covered in this call for papers.* *Anticipated Timeline* *Prospective contributors should submit a CV and an abstract (up to two pages in length, single or double spaced) of their study along with up to two pages of supporting material (e.g. tables, figures, pictures, etc) no later than 5 PM EST on May 2, 2016 to:* *https://rsfjournal.onlineapplicationportal.com * All submissions must be original work that has not been previously published in part or in full. Only abstracts submitted to rsfjournal.onlineapplicationportal.com will be considered. Each paper will receive a $1,000 honorarium when the issue is published. The journal issue is being edited by Kay Deaux, Distinguished Professor Emerita at CUNY Graduate Center and Visiting Research Scholar, New York University; Katharine M. Donato, Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University; and Nancy Foner, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Hunter College and the CUNY Graduate Center. All questions regarding this issue should be directed to Suzanne Nichols, Director of Publications, at journals@rsage.org and not to the email addresses of the editors of the special issue. A conference will take place at RSF in New York City on *February 17, 2017*. The selected contributors will gather for a one-day workshop to present draft papers (due on 1/17/17, a month prior to the conference) and receive feedback from the other contributors and editors. Travel costs, food, and lodging will be covered by the foundation. Papers will be circulated before the conference. After the conference, the authors will submit their final drafts on or before April 28, 2017. The papers will then be sent out to two additional scholars for peer review. Having received feedback from reviewers and the RSF board, authors will revise their papers before August 1, 2017. The full and final issue will be published in the spring of 2018. Papers will be published open access on the RSF website as well as in several digital repositories, including JSTOR and UPCC/Muse. *Please click here for a full description of the topics covered in this call for papers.* ------------------------------ * Order RSF Books | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy | Contact Us Russell Sage Foundation ? 112 East 64th Street, New York, NY 10065 ? (212) 750-6000* Update Profile / Unsubscribe -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Tue Mar 1 14:46:46 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 22:46:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Heathcote and Immagination In-Reply-To: References: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> <4C1392F0-E56F-49F7-8246-7E61A04C6D4C@umich.edu> Message-ID: Hi Robert Robert - I appreciate your guidance on the best readings by Maxine Greene on this topic - it is certainly worth reconnecting with her work on imagination and I look forward to reading more. Kind regards Sue On 2/03/2016 3:55 am, "Robert Lake" wrote: >Hi Mike and Ed, >Thanks for your queries and comments on Maxine Greene. >Her contribution to the field is focused more on social imagination >rather >than the commodified and indivualistic versions of neoliberal R and D >departments. >Here are a few quotes the offer a window into what she meant by this >concept. >The link to more of her work is in the box below. >My doctoral studies were predicated on her work along with Vera >John-Steiner's and since then I have found >many connections to LSV and the socio-cultural aspects of consciousness >that are so wonderfully represented >in the extended XCMA community. > >Robert Lake > > >*We also have our social imagination: the capacity to invent visions of >what should be and what might be in our deficient society, on the streets >where we live, in our schools. As I write of social imagination, I am >reminded of Jean-Paul Sartre?s **declaration that ?it is on the day that >we >can conceive of a different state of affairs that a new light falls on our >troubles and our suffering and that we decide that these are unbearable?* > > - Maxine Greene: *Releasing the Imagination*. (p. 5). > > >*"Our very realization that the individual does not precede community may >summon up images of relation, of the networks of concern in which we >teachers still do our work and, as we do so, create and recreate >ourselves. >More and more of us, for all our postmodern preoccupations, are aware of >how necesary it is to keep such visions of possibility before our eyes in >the face of rampant carelessness and alteration and fragmentation.* > > >*If is out of this kind of thinking, I still believe, that the ground of a >critical community can be opened in our teaching and in our schools. It is >out of such thinking that public spaces may be regained. The challenge is >to make the ground palpable and visible to our students, to make possible >the interplay of multiple plurality of consciousnesses --- and their >recalcitrances and their resistances, along with their affirmations, their >"songs of love." And, yes, it is to work for responsiveness to principles >of equity, principles of equality, and principles of freedom, which still >can be named within contexts of caring and concern. The principles and the >contexts have to be chosen by living human beings against their own >life-worlds and in the light of their lives with others, by persons able >to >call, to say, to sing, and -- using their imaginations, tapping their >courage -- to transform."* > > - Maxine Greene, *Releasing the Imagination**, *pp. 197-198. > > >On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > >> Mike >> >> I?m not entirely positive which discussion you are referring below, >> but, although I probably have it, I don?t have it pulled out. >> >> Also I?m not entirely sure what questions you say are left hanging; >> questions sometimes have a way of being answered (smile). >> >> Interesting you mention Maxine Greene as, in a way, what I >>consider >> as the most relevant of her writings here was early and titled ?The >>Teacher >> as Stranger.? However, that is my perspective on these things. >> >> I?m not quite ready for "drama and imagination" although I would >>be >> fine, in the interim, with "teacher and imagination.? >> >> I have, perhaps, a few things of interest to say in my reply to >> Susan which I will get to later today. >> >> Ed >> >> > On Feb 29, 2016, at 7:53 PM, mike cole wrote: >> > >> > Seems like the section on imagination you mention, Susan, fits right >>in >> > with that thread of xmca discussion. Linking drama and imagination >>seems >> > essential to me and you mention several who have done so effectively. >>You >> > also remind me to go back and re-read Maxine Greene! Now I am further >> > behind than ever. Better stop reading. :-) >> > >> > Ed, do you have that discussion pulled out and re-examined. It left a >>LOT >> > of questions unanswered. >> > >> > Maybe we need a header called drama and imagination? >> > >> > If so, I vote we add Raymond Williams to the discussion. >> > mike >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:39 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-praxi >> >>>> 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.pdf >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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 >> >> >> > > >-- >Robert Lake Ed.D. >Associate Professor >Social Foundations of Education >Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >Georgia Southern University >Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group >Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake >P. O. Box 8144 >Phone: (912) 478-0355 >Fax: (912) 478-5382 >Statesboro, GA 30460 >*If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather the wood or >divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast >and endless sea- *Antoine de Saint Exupery (1948). -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: default[7].xml Type: application/xml Size: 3222 bytes Desc: default[7].xml Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160301/60173235/attachment.rdf From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Tue Mar 1 14:54:32 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 22:54:32 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Heathcote and Immagination In-Reply-To: <8B7D4F7E-4C09-48D4-A43E-11564B179A5F@umich.edu> References: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> <8B7D4F7E-4C09-48D4-A43E-11564B179A5F@umich.edu> Message-ID: 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-pra >>>>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.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 >>>>> minutes into this. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Tue Mar 1 15:38:32 2016 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:38:32 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the 'imagined situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' lesson or unit of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for children to 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, emotions and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has agreed that this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and back to their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone steps out of the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and actions that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be revisited, discussed and debated from a more detached position and where understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles they are playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole point is that everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step out of the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it made me feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or "I wonder what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the session is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE (done well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the different chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes this possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people are thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if what they are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current events which mean many children have had to experience confusing school lockdown and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much emphasis on establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being mutually created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing students with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', and to contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the lesson as it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to develop a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might potentially be. Cheers, Helen -- *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 The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote: > Dear Larry, > > I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the ideas I > started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right that I > use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my > study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time, space > and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and expectations > that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described > chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and > spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial and > temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete > whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically > visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of > time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). > > And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the literary > work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we always > ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are > laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate to > each other in a different way - depending on a situation. > > You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds > (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in > different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in > different situations - depending on the relationship in which these > chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that when > the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as > ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard, > potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) to > ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the imagined > and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the > dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a > relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to > examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. In that > sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the reality as > a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic > contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to draw the > boundary between them. > > I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world > contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? > > What do you think? > > Ana > > > > On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > > Ana, > > In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing > chrono/topes. > > * community of players (CoPl) > > * reality (RC) or ontological > > * imagined (IC) > > > > Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of > *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a chronotopic > theme. > > There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its > opposite. > > Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON > UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are > *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. Chronotopes. > > Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar > opposites in your horizon of understanding. > > A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of > players chronotopes. > > > > I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation > of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar > opposites. > > This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of > *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side > *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the other > side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. > > The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek > classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking > > Larry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > > Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 12:41 AM > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional > dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning > possibilities > > > > Dear Sue and Brian and all, > > > > > > > > First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I > take your response very seriously. I have some questions for clarification > and also some more comments regarding what I think is a ?paradigmatic > difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two approaches > to education that I outlined in my paper. > > > > Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! > > > > > > > > Ana > > > > > > > > > > > > __________ > > > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis wrote: > > > > As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for > educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s > article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our > intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of > drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of > the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look > forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential > overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. > > > > We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named > ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within playworlds, > or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We > confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and from > which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama > described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? and > more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, > among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from very > different communities in progressive school education, educational > psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently discovered > the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently been > some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book > ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < > http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-9781472576 > 910/> which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and > concern. > > > > ANA: Yes! This is what I also addressed in my article: I defined ?Drama > in Education? for the purposes of my article exactly that way ? many > different approaches ?all of whom independently discovered the power of > using drama in their practice?. > > > > As with those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look > forward to more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice > and approaches which work for the benefit of students and participants in > learning processes. > > > > There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the > dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely helpful. > However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that any > dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are irreconcilable > paradigmatic differences between these pedagogical approaches. > > > > In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for > using drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to > play the ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and > enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such social > agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is > little difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of > everyday life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by > agreeing to participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional > sphere of possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored > through the activation of ?what if? in action. > > > > Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a > group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events. > There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work together or to > focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern; there is no > consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. > > > > Ana: In my view ? there are several planes (or to use Bakhtin?s concept > - ?chronotopes?) of meaning making in all educational events. Above, you > are referring to two of them: a) group relationships and group dynamics of > the co-authors: ?when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in > dramatizing life events?; and b) ?meaning making? ? I assume that you refer > here to what each participant understands about the created dramatic world. > > > > I want to stress that in my article I was describing precisely these > group relationships rather than the participants? understanding of an > imaginary dramatic world. What I claim in my article is that there are > fundamentally different group relationships, i.e. that the pedagogical > chronotope (not the dramatic world) in which the participants of drama in > education live, is fundamentally different from the pedagogical chronotope > in which the participants of dialogic pedagogy live. In drama in education, > the consensus about ?dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or > concern?- is necessary in order to build this particular dramatization. On > the other hand, in dialogic pedagogy such consensus about what is "a > particular storyline, topic or concern" ? is not necessary at all. In fact, > I claim that the most productive and the most welcome aspect of dialogic > pedagogy is the very dissent about what is being ?discussed? in the first > place. > > > > Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose > not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. Participants may present or > raise different views that may be addressed dialogically. Agreeing to join > in is not an experience of being ?trapped? by a teacher with no exit in > sight. > > > > Ana: I would respectfully disagree here. This phrase and understanding > of what should be taking place in drama in education, comes directly from > Dorothy Heathcote. I actually just quoted her in my paper: ?The proper > tools of drama are emotional reaction and the state of being trapped, a > state from which one can escape only by working through the situation.? > (Heathcote, Collected writings on drama in education, 1984, p. 91, italics > mine). > > > > Nor does it mean that a teacher would label someone a ?spoilsport? to be > ?cast out.? We have conducted many practical sessions when not only have > people chosen to sit out, some of whom have later chosen to join in, but we > have protected young people from others in a group ready to ?discipline? > them. > > > > Ana: My arguments about the explicit and implicit values of the drama in > education approach are actually based exactly on this point: In my view, if > a person is under a threat of being ?disciplined? just because they > disagree with the majority ? either by openly opposing their opinions, or > their ways of acting, or by withdrawing collaboration, and if such > opposition is not supported and addressed by the teacher as a legitimate > and a serious bid to differ ? then the group regime and the pedagogical > approach are, in fact, not dialogic, but rather monologic and, yes, > authoritarian! If a teacher has to protect someone from the others in a > group that wants to ?discipline? him/her, then the group values that > prevail are based on ?who ever is not with us ? is against us?. Doesn?t > that mean that there is no active pedagogical support of dissensus? > > > > Just as a person who does not join a theatre group cannot create a > performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play with others may > engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means that a > person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of > events in an imagined world. > > > > Ana: Exactly! Thus this person?s ideas, reasons, points of view, > desires, values, etc. are not pedagogically engaged. This person is NOT > within the pedagogical scope of this approach. This is, actually, what > means to be ?cast out? from a pedagogical event ? the person is just NOT > IN. They are OUT. Moreover, this is also often interpreted as that > person?s (bad) choice! (As you say ? ?a preschool child choosing not to > play.?) > > > > Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama > session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to infer that > Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their choices and > alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the > keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices, where she > describes another more recent 2007 drama conducted in the U.S., Heathcote > worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an authoritarian > position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their > actions. When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory > event in a drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that > isn?t happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). > Even though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate > the boys involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they > offered, drawing out significance, considering the implications and working > dialogically with very alternative views from her own. > > > > > > Ana: Since you describe it, I want to briefly analyze this case ? > Heathcote?s 2007 drama workshop in NYC. In my view, it actually presents > more evidence for the hypothesis I developed in my article. (I am attaching > O?Neil?s keynote address to this e-mail - for the curious ones) > > > > In my analysis of the event you outlined above (fully described by > O?Neil), three major questions/comments come to mind: > > > > 1) First: If in Drama in Education approach students can dialogically > contribute to creating an imaginary world (as you claim) ? offering their > own opinions, ideas and positions, then why would a teacher ever be in a > situation to ?castigate students for their actions? ? in the first place? > What was ?wrong? with ?blowing up a celebratory event? in the imaginary > world? Why were the others in the room [graduate students who observed > Dorothy?s master class] horrified? Shouldn?t the spectators be actually > very curious about this sudden turn of the events in the imaginary world, > which at that point is being truly collaboratively created? > > > > 2) Second, O?Neil's very detailed and documented description of > Heathcote?s workshop in 2007 - testifies to a subversive resistance of the > several boys ? and their constant attempts to resist Dorothy?s pre-set plan > of this imaginary world. This unacknowledged, yet very felt resistance, at > the end of the workshop lead to their ?sabotage? of Dorothy?s invented > world ? by ?blowing it up?. As O?Neil writes: > > > > ?One of the graduate students noted in her journal: > > > > Noel and his buddies are constantly scheming and plotting and indulging > in behaviour which some teachers might consider destructive. However it?s > clear to me that their purpose is not to destroy or sabotage the work but > to remain within the rules which have already have been established.? > (O?Neil, Power sharing ? teacher power and student?s choices, 2014, p. 20, > italics mine) > > > > My questions/comments here are about the legitimacy of the students? > genuine contributions to making of the imaginary world. From the testimony > of an observer (a graduate student), it seems that the boys? contributions > were limited to Dorothy?s pre-set frame, and that their attempts to change > that imaginary frame were in fact not legitimate for the students - but > perceived as ?constant scheming and plotting and indulging in behavious > which some teachers might consider destructive". That is exactly what I > claimed in my article. > > > > 3) Finally, O?Neil also describes how Dorothy reacted to this > imaginary bomb: > > ?But Dorothy took this moment and grounded it in reality. As the bomb > happened Heathcote?s response was: > > > > Just now you have echoed an interview I heard on your local radio this > very day, with a young Muslim radical. He said, ?I will kill when the > Mullah tells me. It will be the will of Allah. I do not care who will > die.?? (p. 95) > > > > In my analysis, Dorothy?s reaction in that moment was extremely angry > and punitive. She addresses the boys not any more within the imaginary > world, but ?grounded in reality.? She compares them ? the 8th grade boys ? > to the terrorists, who could say ?I do not care who will die?. Thus, she > openly blames the boys for what they did to ?her world? - they destroyed > it. They were spoilsports! > > > > However, in spite the fact that Dorothy compared the acts of these 8th > grade boys within a dramatic world to the actual terrorists - meaning it > FOR REAL (grounded in reality), everyone (grad students, other drama > educators, Cecily O?Neil, etc.) praises Heathcote!! They praise her for not > ?telling the students off?, for being able to withhold her anger and her > outright punishment. No one is taken aback with her anger which shows its > dark face in her aggressive and vindictive dubbing the boys as ?young > Muslim radicals who can say - I do not care who will die? ? dubbing them > not as fictional characters in the play ? but ?grounded in reality?!!! > > > > I think that the actual ?chronotope? of drama in education pedagogy > calls for being ?horrified? with such an open dissent and calls for some > kind of ?castigating the boys?. > > > > As you say further: > > > > > > Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is > authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a fascist > dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to misuse her > authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might > participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has > never been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) > > > > Ana: yes, I do. > > > > that is never our intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. > It is true that at times Heathcote can quite rightly be described as acting > in ?authoritative? roles within dramatic contexts, but she fiercely > resisted pressures to take on authoritarian teacher positions. > > > > > > Ana: I respectfully disagree -- the case above does not support your > assumption. > > > > Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she > intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their power? (p.21). > Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not bully or take away > power from others, but rather that should enable them to develop their > agency. Her commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared > through an interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. > Here Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching strategies were all > developed so she would never have to be in a position to ?tell people off? > (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many romanticised notions of an > open, free for all classroom, this version of the democratized classroom > was not a hands-off model with students making all the decisions. Rather, > she envisions a classroom with episodes that were highly interventionist > and carefully structured. These often involved provocations and active > negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, constantly > selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the > students were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work > that would be meaningful in multiple ways for all participants. > > > > Ana: I agree with you that Heathcote was a master in creating very > intricate, multilayered, and incredibly complex worlds in which she would > involve the students in very collaborative and meaningful ways. I also > agree that there is a lot of room for creativity in such a setting, and > especially when Dorothy Heathcote created it, since she herself was > incredibly creative in making the fictional worlds for the students. But, > these dramatic worlds were HER worlds ? not the students? worlds. The > students were welcome ? but they were never co-authors of these worlds as > ?consciousnesses of equal rights? - among whom a meaningful dialogue can > happen. Their contributions to these worlds were appreciated by her only as > long as they agreed with Dorothy?s own vision. The students were invited to > explore and investigate Dorothy?s worlds ? but not to co-create them as > equals and co-authors. In that sense, dialogues within these worlds were > dialogues of ?the heroes?, who were invented and created by Dorothy as an > author ? I draw here on Bakhtin?s analysis of the author-hero relationships > ? where the author is the one who has a ?surplus of vision? and knows more > than his/her characters. Because of that, a genuine authorial contribution > of a student is limited, and the students? own positions, ideas, desires, > values, intentions, etc. ? are not examined as such: they can only serve in > the function of creating this dramatic word ? of which they are not the > owners. The focus, in other words, is not on what the students genuinely > think, understand, desire, value, etc., and why, but the focus is on how > well has this imaginary world been built. Can the students learn in that > situation. Of course. Can they critically test their own ideas, values, > desires, postions? Perhaps, but it is out of the focus and scope of the > dramatic world. > > > > Heathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to > create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect to explore for > multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot increase the > reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because reflection > is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). > Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be > recognized fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect > a situation, and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that > situation? (Ibid, p. 153). > > > > It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples > of praxis in an apples and oranges way to draw out unwarranted > generalizations about all drama in education. She compares examples of > teaching on different topics, for different purposes, and with access to > very different data: a short segment of a 45 year old videoed drama with > children is compared to an extended sequence of exchanges and events in a > higher education institution taught recently by the author. The drama > example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few minutes of a BBC > film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not educational purposes. > Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s out-of-role negotiations and > reflections with these children all of whom had been labeled as > ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special school for > youth. > > > > Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the > children, including through her early use of power in role, not to force > them to do what they did not want to do but rather the reverse. > Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in drama, participants do not ?test > their own ideas ? their truths? and that teachers do not seek out or value > ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is ours. Heathcote?s > intention in this session was to work with the children to create fictional > experiences in which by working together the boys were not only able to > work out ways in which they might outwit an authoritarian > > > > > > [The entire original message is not included.] > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Mar 1 17:17:57 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:17:57 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56d63f71.1912620a.29625.07b6@mx.google.com> I will just add a comment on our explorations as not (really) a *divide* but more a fruitful boundary *marking*. For example to enter into the *PRE/tend* and then moving out or away from this chronotope and moving to or toward the real chronotope (the ontological chronotope). The question I am asking is directly related to this notion of *boundary markings* and multiple *structures* by which I mean multiple ways of endowing or embodying our dwelling places. What is *pre/tend* what is *imaginal* what is *fictional* what is *real* what is *ontological* what is *community of players* is not a rigid divide but is a fluid *structure*. I am suggesting there are multiple structures which may be considered *structures of consciousness* and we may become *captured* by differing structures of consciousness in which the imaginal and the real play out. For example it may be possible to understand the Adam structure as a myth of falling away from the *source* or the source as *withdrawing* from *us* and the yearning or desire is to return to the *source*. This *structure* of consciousness runs deep and plays out in historical consciousness for example in the protestant belief/faith in the self being able to have a direct knowledge of the *source* I believe it is possible to be *captured* by this structure of consciousness. In contrast from Greece emerged an alternative boundary marking of the *imaginal* the *ontological* and the *community of players*. They had a notion of the *soul* that animated the real and was the *source*. This is another *structure* by which I mean the way the boundary marking of the *real* and the *imaginal* play OUT Another way of being *captured*. So to Helen's point to move in and out of what is imagined as *PREtend* and return to what is imagined as the *real* is also playing with this boundary and marking what is pretend and what is real. It also is a *structure* of consciousness. To take a historical perspective and be able to *perceive* the differing ways *community of players* mark the boundary of the horizon operating between the imaginal and the real shows this fluidity of frameworks and the historical structure is one more example of a particular structure of consciousness that may *capture* us in its horizon.. I would then also include the notion of paradigmatic shifts in how we come to understand as movements of boundary markings . The structure of consciousness AS *polar opposites* as yet another *structure* of consciousness that *captures* us. The question then opens up if these structures themselves can be seem as types or kinds that show up as typical or proto/typical ways of marking the fluid boundary of the laminated chronotopes that can be imagined as existing *simultaneously* within layered structures of consciousness. This may be wild con/jecture and require either suspension of belief or suspension of disbelief but this is the *field* that opens to speculation and skepticism and criticism. Raymond Williams has something to say in these matters. Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Helen Grimmett" Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 3:40 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the 'imagined situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' lesson or unit of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for children to 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, emotions and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has agreed that this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and back to their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone steps out of the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and actions that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be revisited, discussed and debated from a more detached position and where understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles they are playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole point is that everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step out of the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it made me feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or "I wonder what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the session is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE (done well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the different chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes this possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people are thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if what they are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current events which mean many children have had to experience confusing school lockdown and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much emphasis on establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being mutually created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing students with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', and to contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the lesson as it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to develop a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might potentially be. Cheers, Helen -- *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 The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote: > Dear Larry, > > I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the ideas I > started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right that I > use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my > study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time, space > and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and expectations > that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described > chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and > spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial and > temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete > whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically > visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of > time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). > > And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the literary > work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we always > ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are > laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate to > each other in a different way - depending on a situation. > > You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds > (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in > different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in > different situations - depending on the relationship in which these > chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that when > the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as > ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard, > potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) to > ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the imagined > and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the > dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a > relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to > examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. In that > sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the reality as > a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic > contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to draw the > boundary between them. > > I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world > contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? > > What do you think? > > Ana > > > > On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > > Ana, > > In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing > chrono/topes. > > * community of players (CoPl) > > * reality (RC) or ontological > > * imagined (IC) > > > > Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of > *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a chronotopic > theme. > > There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its > opposite. > > Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON > UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are > *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. Chronotopes. > > Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar > opposites in your horizon of understanding. > > A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of > players chronotopes. > > > > I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation > of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar > opposites. > > This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of > *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side > *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the other > side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. > > The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek > classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking > > Larry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > > Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 12:41 AM > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional > dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning > possibilities > > > > Dear Sue and Brian and all, > > > > > > > > First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I > take your response very seriously. I have some questions for clarification > and also some more comments regarding what I think is a ?paradigmatic > difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two approaches > to education that I outlined in my paper. > > > > Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! > > > > > > > > Ana > > > > > > > > > > > > __________ > > > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis wrote: > > > > As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for > educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s > article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our > intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of > drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of > the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look > forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential > overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. > > > > We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named > ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within playworlds, > or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We > confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and from > which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama > described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? and > more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, > among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from very > different communities in progressive school education, educational > psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently discovered > the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently been > some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book > ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < > http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-9781472576 > 910/> which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and > concern. > > > > ANA: Yes! This is what I also addressed in my article: I defined ?Drama > in Education? for the purposes of my article exactly that way ? many > different approaches ?all of whom independently discovered the power of > using drama in their practice?. > > > > As with those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look > forward to more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice > and approaches which work for the benefit of students and participants in > learning processes. > > > > There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the > dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely helpful. > However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that any > dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are irreconcilable > paradigmatic differences between these pedagogical approaches. > > > > In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for > using drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to > play the ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and > enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such social > agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is > little difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of > everyday life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by > agreeing to participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional > sphere of possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored > through the activation of ?what if? in action. > > > > Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a > group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events. > There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work together or to > focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern; there is no > consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. > > > > Ana: In my view ? there are several planes (or to use Bakhtin?s concept > - ?chronotopes?) of meaning making in all educational events. Above, you > are referring to two of them: a) group relationships and group dynamics of > the co-authors: ?when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in > dramatizing life events?; and b) ?meaning making? ? I assume that you refer > here to what each participant understands about the created dramatic world. > > > > I want to stress that in my article I was describing precisely these > group relationships rather than the participants? understanding of an > imaginary dramatic world. What I claim in my article is that there are > fundamentally different group relationships, i.e. that the pedagogical > chronotope (not the dramatic world) in which the participants of drama in > education live, is fundamentally different from the pedagogical chronotope > in which the participants of dialogic pedagogy live. In drama in education, > the consensus about ?dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or > concern?- is necessary in order to build this particular dramatization. On > the other hand, in dialogic pedagogy such consensus about what is "a > particular storyline, topic or concern" ? is not necessary at all. In fact, > I claim that the most productive and the most welcome aspect of dialogic > pedagogy is the very dissent about what is being ?discussed? in the first > place. > > > > Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose > not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. Participants may present or > raise different views that may be addressed dialogically. Agreeing to join > in is not an experience of being ?trapped? by a teacher with no exit in > sight. > > > > Ana: I would respectfully disagree here. This phrase and understanding > of what should be taking place in drama in education, comes directly from > Dorothy Heathcote. I actually just quoted her in my paper: ?The proper > tools of drama are emotional reaction and the state of being trapped, a > state from which one can escape only by working through the situation.? > (Heathcote, Collected writings on drama in education, 1984, p. 91, italics > mine). > > > > Nor does it mean that a teacher would label someone a ?spoilsport? to be > ?cast out.? We have conducted many practical sessions when not only have > people chosen to sit out, some of whom have later chosen to join in, but we > have protected young people from others in a group ready to ?discipline? > them. > > > > Ana: My arguments about the explicit and implicit values of the drama in > education approach are actually based exactly on this point: In my view, if > a person is under a threat of being ?disciplined? just because they > disagree with the majority ? either by openly opposing their opinions, or > their ways of acting, or by withdrawing collaboration, and if such > opposition is not supported and addressed by the teacher as a legitimate > and a serious bid to differ ? then the group regime and the pedagogical > approach are, in fact, not dialogic, but rather monologic and, yes, > authoritarian! If a teacher has to protect someone from the others in a > group that wants to ?discipline? him/her, then the group values that > prevail are based on ?who ever is not with us ? is against us?. Doesn?t > that mean that there is no active pedagogical support of dissensus? > > > > Just as a person who does not join a theatre group cannot create a > performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play with others may > engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means that a > person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of > events in an imagined world. > > > > Ana: Exactly! Thus this person?s ideas, reasons, points of view, > desires, values, etc. are not pedagogically engaged. This person is NOT > within the pedagogical scope of this approach. This is, actually, what > means to be ?cast out? from a pedagogical event ? the person is just NOT > IN. They are OUT. Moreover, this is also often interpreted as that > person?s (bad) choice! (As you say ? ?a preschool child choosing not to > play.?) > > > > Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama > session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to infer that > Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their choices and > alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the > keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices, where she > describes another more recent 2007 drama conducted in the U.S., Heathcote > worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an authoritarian > position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their > actions. When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory > event in a drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that > isn?t happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). > Even though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate > the boys involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they > offered, drawing out significance, considering the implications and working > dialogically with very alternative views from her own. > > > > > > Ana: Since you describe it, I want to briefly analyze this case ? > Heathcote?s 2007 drama workshop in NYC. In my view, it actually presents > more evidence for the hypothesis I developed in my article. (I am attaching > O?Neil?s keynote address to this e-mail - for the curious ones) > > > > In my analysis of the event you outlined above (fully described by > O?Neil), three major questions/comments come to mind: > > > > 1) First: If in Drama in Education approach students can dialogically > contribute to creating an imaginary world (as you claim) ? offering their > own opinions, ideas and positions, then why would a teacher ever be in a > situation to ?castigate students for their actions? ? in the first place? > What was ?wrong? with ?blowing up a celebratory event? in the imaginary > world? Why were the others in the room [graduate students who observed > Dorothy?s master class] horrified? Shouldn?t the spectators be actually > very curious about this sudden turn of the events in the imaginary world, > which at that point is being truly collaboratively created? > > > > 2) Second, O?Neil's very detailed and documented description of > Heathcote?s workshop in 2007 - testifies to a subversive resistance of the > several boys ? and their constant attempts to resist Dorothy?s pre-set plan > of this imaginary world. This unacknowledged, yet very felt resistance, at > the end of the workshop lead to their ?sabotage? of Dorothy?s invented > world ? by ?blowing it up?. As O?Neil writes: > > > > ?One of the graduate students noted in [The entire original message is not included.] From edmiston.1@osu.edu Tue Mar 1 18:07:16 2016 From: edmiston.1@osu.edu (Edmiston, Brian W.) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 02:07:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Helen Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if we were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might mean for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 year olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: fabric, pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and relationships we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in a shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to pigs by Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with Circe ? and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do friends do - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, and we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on those tests ...) In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a lot, especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are always in two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other at will - like what children do when they play without adults. That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of our actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the acts and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others (or often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we can move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two chronotopes but can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events. While at the same time each person is always able to see through the perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like for me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to make new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... However, with me present and both playing along with the children and stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) and what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no one is dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose whether or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean (e.g.Circe might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each person chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone can step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality happen together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the sense that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had been brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at pictures in the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make to find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children how he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we then embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger boy snuck in to join his friends! This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in ?!) Brian BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and Dramatic Approaches. [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] Brian Edmiston, PhD Professor of Drama in Education Department of Teaching and Learning Columbus, OH 43210 edmiston.1@osu.edu go.osu.edu/edmiston 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed, to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, lips, hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his entire self in discourse' Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett > wrote: I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the 'imagined situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' lesson or unit of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for children to 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, emotions and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has agreed that this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and back to their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone steps out of the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and actions that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be revisited, discussed and debated from a more detached position and where understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles they are playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole point is that everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step out of the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it made me feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or "I wonder what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the session is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE (done well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the different chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes this possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people are thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if what they are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current events which mean many children have had to experience confusing school lockdown and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much emphasis on establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being mutually created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing students with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', and to contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the lesson as it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to develop a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might potentially be. Cheers, Helen -- *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 The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote: Dear Larry, I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the ideas I started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right that I use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time, space and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and expectations that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial and temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the literary work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we always ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate to each other in a different way - depending on a situation. You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in different situations - depending on the relationship in which these chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that when the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard, potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) to ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the imagined and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. In that sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the reality as a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to draw the boundary between them. I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? What do you think? Ana On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: Ana, In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing chrono/topes. * community of players (CoPl) * reality (RC) or ontological * imagined (IC) Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a chronotopic theme. There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its opposite. Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. Chronotopes. Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar opposites in your horizon of understanding. A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of players chronotopes. I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar opposites. This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the other side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 12:41 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities Dear Sue and Brian and all, First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I take your response very seriously. I have some questions for clarification and also some more comments regarding what I think is a ?paradigmatic difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two approaches to education that I outlined in my paper. Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! Ana __________ On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis wrote: As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from very different communities in progressive school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-9781472576 910/> which we published last year) to find areas of common interest and concern. ANA: Yes! This is what I also addressed in my article: I defined ?Drama in Education? for the purposes of my article exactly that way ? many different approaches ?all of whom independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice?. As with those who identify with the field of ?dialogic pedagogy? we look forward to more fruitful discussions and debates about research, practice and approaches which work for the benefit of students and participants in learning processes. There is no space in this response to show in detail why we resist the dichotomy established in this article, believing such are rarely helpful. However, we do can not agree with Marjanovic-Shane?s conclusion that any dramatic pedagogy cannot be dialogic or that there are irreconcilable paradigmatic differences between these pedagogical approaches. In our view, she is correct in identifying that a pre-requisite for using drama in classrooms is an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to play the ?game of drama? and in effect to begin to create an ensemble and enter into social worlds. However, rather than characterizing such social agreement as somehow different from real life, we argue that there is little difference from the tacit agreement to join in the ?social drama? of everyday life (Turner, 1974), as for example university students do by agreeing to participate in a discussion. However drama has the additional sphere of possibility that can be physically and conceptually explored through the activation of ?what if? in action. Unlike discussion, drama is a social art that can only be created when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events. There is indeed a consensus but only about agreeing to work together or to focus dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern; there is no consensus assumed about the meaning of the work. Ana: In my view ? there are several planes (or to use Bakhtin?s concept - ?chronotopes?) of meaning making in all educational events. Above, you are referring to two of them: a) group relationships and group dynamics of the co-authors: ?when a group comes together willingly to collaborate in dramatizing life events?; and b) ?meaning making? ? I assume that you refer here to what each participant understands about the created dramatic world. I want to stress that in my article I was describing precisely these group relationships rather than the participants? understanding of an imaginary dramatic world. What I claim in my article is that there are fundamentally different group relationships, i.e. that the pedagogical chronotope (not the dramatic world) in which the participants of drama in education live, is fundamentally different from the pedagogical chronotope in which the participants of dialogic pedagogy live. In drama in education, the consensus about ?dramatizing on a particular storyline, topic, or concern?- is necessary in order to build this particular dramatization. On the other hand, in dialogic pedagogy such consensus about what is "a particular storyline, topic or concern" ? is not necessary at all. In fact, I claim that the most productive and the most welcome aspect of dialogic pedagogy is the very dissent about what is being ?discussed? in the first place. Using drama in a classroom does not assume that a student cannot choose not to join in or cannot opt out at any point. Participants may present or raise different views that may be addressed dialogically. Agreeing to join in is not an experience of being ?trapped? by a teacher with no exit in sight. Ana: I would respectfully disagree here. This phrase and understanding of what should be taking place in drama in education, comes directly from Dorothy Heathcote. I actually just quoted her in my paper: ?The proper tools of drama are emotional reaction and the state of being trapped, a state from which one can escape only by working through the situation.? (Heathcote, Collected writings on drama in education, 1984, p. 91, italics mine). Nor does it mean that a teacher would label someone a ?spoilsport? to be ?cast out.? We have conducted many practical sessions when not only have people chosen to sit out, some of whom have later chosen to join in, but we have protected young people from others in a group ready to ?discipline? them. Ana: My arguments about the explicit and implicit values of the drama in education approach are actually based exactly on this point: In my view, if a person is under a threat of being ?disciplined? just because they disagree with the majority ? either by openly opposing their opinions, or their ways of acting, or by withdrawing collaboration, and if such opposition is not supported and addressed by the teacher as a legitimate and a serious bid to differ ? then the group regime and the pedagogical approach are, in fact, not dialogic, but rather monologic and, yes, authoritarian! If a teacher has to protect someone from the others in a group that wants to ?discipline? him/her, then the group values that prevail are based on ?who ever is not with us ? is against us?. Doesn?t that mean that there is no active pedagogical support of dissensus? Just as a person who does not join a theatre group cannot create a performance, or a preschool child choosing not to play with others may engage in other activities, not participating in drama just means that a person cannot contribute at that time to the collaborative creation of events in an imagined world. Ana: Exactly! Thus this person?s ideas, reasons, points of view, desires, values, etc. are not pedagogically engaged. This person is NOT within the pedagogical scope of this approach. This is, actually, what means to be ?cast out? from a pedagogical event ? the person is just NOT IN. They are OUT. Moreover, this is also often interpreted as that person?s (bad) choice! (As you say ? ?a preschool child choosing not to play.?) Marjanovic-Shane uses a highly selective video extract from a 1971 drama session featuring the master teacher Dorothy Heathcote to infer that Heathcote dragoons students into a drama within which their choices and alternative views are closed down. However, as O?Neill shared in the keynote address Power-sharing: Teacher power and student choices, where she describes another more recent 2007 drama conducted in the U.S., Heathcote worked with all major offers children made, never adopting an authoritarian position but asking participants to consider the consequences of their actions. When a group of boys invented a bomb which ?blew? up a celebratory event in a drama, Heathcote said: ?There is nothing we do in this room that isn?t happening somewhere in the world? (Heathcote in O?Neill 2014, p 26). Even though others in the room were horrified and expected her to castigate the boys involved, Heathcote respected and worked with the material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the implications and working dialogically with very alternative views from her own. Ana: Since you describe it, I want to briefly analyze this case ? Heathcote?s 2007 drama workshop in NYC. In my view, it actually presents more evidence for the hypothesis I developed in my article. (I am attaching O?Neil?s keynote address to this e-mail - for the curious ones) In my analysis of the event you outlined above (fully described by O?Neil), three major questions/comments come to mind: 1) First: If in Drama in Education approach students can dialogically contribute to creating an imaginary world (as you claim) ? offering their own opinions, ideas and positions, then why would a teacher ever be in a situation to ?castigate students for their actions? ? in the first place? What was ?wrong? with ?blowing up a celebratory event? in the imaginary world? Why were the others in the room [graduate students who observed Dorothy?s master class] horrified? Shouldn?t the spectators be actually very curious about this sudden turn of the events in the imaginary world, which at that point is being truly collaboratively created? 2) Second, O?Neil's very detailed and documented description of Heathcote?s workshop in 2007 - testifies to a subversive resistance of the several boys ? and their constant attempts to resist Dorothy?s pre-set plan of this imaginary world. This unacknowledged, yet very felt resistance, at the end of the workshop lead to their ?sabotage? of Dorothy?s invented world ? by ?blowing it up?. As O?Neil writes: ?One of the graduate students noted in her journal: Noel and his buddies are constantly scheming and plotting and indulging in behaviour which some teachers might consider destructive. However it?s clear to me that their purpose is not to destroy or sabotage the work but to remain within the rules which have already have been established.? (O?Neil, Power sharing ? teacher power and student?s choices, 2014, p. 20, italics mine) My questions/comments here are about the legitimacy of the students? genuine contributions to making of the imaginary world. From the testimony of an observer (a graduate student), it seems that the boys? contributions were limited to Dorothy?s pre-set frame, and that their attempts to change that imaginary frame were in fact not legitimate for the students - but perceived as ?constant scheming and plotting and indulging in behavious which some teachers might consider destructive". That is exactly what I claimed in my article. 3) Finally, O?Neil also describes how Dorothy reacted to this imaginary bomb: ?But Dorothy took this moment and grounded it in reality. As the bomb happened Heathcote?s response was: Just now you have echoed an interview I heard on your local radio this very day, with a young Muslim radical. He said, ?I will kill when the Mullah tells me. It will be the will of Allah. I do not care who will die.?? (p. 95) In my analysis, Dorothy?s reaction in that moment was extremely angry and punitive. She addresses the boys not any more within the imaginary world, but ?grounded in reality.? She compares them ? the 8th grade boys ? to the terrorists, who could say ?I do not care who will die?. Thus, she openly blames the boys for what they did to ?her world? - they destroyed it. They were spoilsports! However, in spite the fact that Dorothy compared the acts of these 8th grade boys within a dramatic world to the actual terrorists - meaning it FOR REAL (grounded in reality), everyone (grad students, other drama educators, Cecily O?Neil, etc.) praises Heathcote!! They praise her for not ?telling the students off?, for being able to withhold her anger and her outright punishment. No one is taken aback with her anger which shows its dark face in her aggressive and vindictive dubbing the boys as ?young Muslim radicals who can say - I do not care who will die? ? dubbing them not as fictional characters in the play ? but ?grounded in reality?!!! I think that the actual ?chronotope? of drama in education pedagogy calls for being ?horrified? with such an open dissent and calls for some kind of ?castigating the boys?. As you say further: Marjanovic-Shane assumes that a teacher?s authority in drama is authoritarian and that a leader of drama is in danger of becoming a fascist dictator. Whilst it is certainly possible for a teacher to misuse her authority oppressively or with very limited choice for how people might participate (as in the Ron Jones simulation example she uses which has never been seen as a lighthouse model of drama in education) Ana: yes, I do. that is never our intention nor would it be endorsed in the literature. It is true that at times Heathcote can quite rightly be described as acting in ?authoritative? roles within dramatic contexts, but she fiercely resisted pressures to take on authoritarian teacher positions. Ana: I respectfully disagree -- the case above does not support your assumption. Indeed, Heathcote (1984) herself is quite clear that as a teacher she intends to ?bring power to my students and to draw on their power? (p.21). Heathcote saw the teacher?s role as one that should not bully or take away power from others, but rather that should enable them to develop their agency. Her commitment to endowing power and agency to others is shared through an interesting insight in her paper Contexts for Active Learning. Here Heathcote revealed that her drama and teaching strategies were all developed so she would never have to be in a position to ?tell people off? (Heathcote, 2002, p.1). However, counter to many romanticised notions of an open, free for all classroom, this version of the democratized classroom was not a hands-off model with students making all the decisions. Rather, she envisions a classroom with episodes that were highly interventionist and carefully structured. These often involved provocations and active negotiations, with Heathcote playing multi-functional roles, constantly selecting and making decisions, but always working to ensure that the students were invested, contributing, and collaboratively developing work that would be meaningful in multiple ways for all participants. Ana: I agree with you that Heathcote was a master in creating very intricate, multilayered, and incredibly complex worlds in which she would involve the students in very collaborative and meaningful ways. I also agree that there is a lot of room for creativity in such a setting, and especially when Dorothy Heathcote created it, since she herself was incredibly creative in making the fictional worlds for the students. But, these dramatic worlds were HER worlds ? not the students? worlds. The students were welcome ? but they were never co-authors of these worlds as ?consciousnesses of equal rights? - among whom a meaningful dialogue can happen. Their contributions to these worlds were appreciated by her only as long as they agreed with Dorothy?s own vision. The students were invited to explore and investigate Dorothy?s worlds ? but not to co-create them as equals and co-authors. In that sense, dialogues within these worlds were dialogues of ?the heroes?, who were invented and created by Dorothy as an author ? I draw here on Bakhtin?s analysis of the author-hero relationships ? where the author is the one who has a ?surplus of vision? and knows more than his/her characters. Because of that, a genuine authorial contribution of a student is limited, and the students? own positions, ideas, desires, values, intentions, etc. ? are not examined as such: they can only serve in the function of creating this dramatic word ? of which they are not the owners. The focus, in other words, is not on what the students genuinely think, understand, desire, value, etc., and why, but the focus is on how well has this imaginary world been built. Can the students learn in that situation. Of course. Can they critically test their own ideas, values, desires, postions? Perhaps, but it is out of the focus and scope of the dramatic world. Heathcote intended not just to create dramatic experiences but also to create spaces in which all might dialogue and reflect to explore for multiple possible meanings in the work: ?If you cannot increase the reflective power in people you might as well not teach, because reflection is the only thing that in the long run changes anybody? (Ibid, p. 104). Finally, Heathcote was emphatic that all participants in drama, ?be recognized fully as individuals with rights [including] the power to affect a situation, and to respond in a growing complexity of ways to that situation? (Ibid, p. 153). It is unfortunate that the Spoilsport article seeks to compare examples of praxis in an apples and oranges way to draw out unwarranted generalizations about all drama in education. She compares examples of teaching on different topics, for different purposes, and with access to very different data: a short segment of a 45 year old videoed drama with children is compared to an extended sequence of exchanges and events in a higher education institution taught recently by the author. The drama example analyzed is a brief extract from the first few minutes of a BBC film about Dorothy Heathcote made for commercial not educational purposes. Missing from the film is all of Heathcote?s out-of-role negotiations and reflections with these children all of whom had been labeled as ?delinquent? and had in effect been ?cast out? into this special school for youth. Marjanovic-Shane misses the point that Heathcote was playing with the children, including through her early use of power in role, not to force them to do what they did not want to do but rather the reverse. Marjanovic-Shane further assumes that in drama, participants do not ?test their own ideas ? their truths? and that teachers do not seek out or value ?dissensus.? Yet that was Heathcote?s aim as it is ours. Heathcote?s intention in this session was to work with the children to create fictional experiences in which by working together the boys were not only able to work out ways in which they might outwit an authoritarian [The entire original message is not included.] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 3605 bytes Desc: image001.png Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160302/cc01c915/attachment.png From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Mar 1 19:27:22 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 19:27:22 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> Brian, Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces AT ONCE. This means simultaneously. You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one time-space being over the other which also indicates the other time-space becomes under. A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one time-space or the other *at will*. I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) movement which is meaning making is always *at will*. This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action that occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding discourse? -----Original Message----- From: "Edmiston, Brian W." Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 6:09 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities Thanks, Helen Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if we were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might mean for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 year olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: fabric, pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and relationships we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in a shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to pigs by Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with Circe ? and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do friends do - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, and we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on those tests ...) In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a lot, especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are always in two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other at will - like what children do when they play without adults. That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of our actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the acts and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others (or often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we can move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two chronotopes but can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events. While at the same time each person is always able to see through the perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like for me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to make new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... However, with me present and both playing along with the children and stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) and what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no one is dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose whether or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean (e.g.Circe might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each person chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone can step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality happen together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the sense that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had been brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at pictures in the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make to find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children how he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we then embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger boy snuck in to join his friends! This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in ?!) Brian BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and Dramatic Approaches. [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] Brian Edmiston, PhD Professor of Drama in Education Department of Teaching and Learning Columbus, OH 43210 edmiston.1@osu.edu go.osu.edu/edmiston 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed, to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, lips, hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his entire self in discourse' Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett > wrote: I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the 'imagined situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' lesson or unit of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for children to 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, emotions and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has agreed that this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and back to their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone steps out of the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and actions that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be revisited, discussed and debated from a more detached position and where understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles they are playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole point is that everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step out of the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it made me feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or "I wonder what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the session is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE (done well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the different chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes this possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people are thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if what they are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current events which mean many children have had to experience confusing school lockdown and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much emphasis on establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being mutually created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing students with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', and to contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the lesson as it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to develop a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might potentially be. Cheers, Helen -- *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 The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote: Dear Larry, I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the ideas I started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right that I use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time, space and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and expectations that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial and temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the literary work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we always ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate to each other in a different way - depending on a situation. You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in different situations - depending on the relationship in which these chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that when the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard, potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) to ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the imagined and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. In that sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the reality as a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to draw the boundary between them. I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? What do you think? Ana On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: Ana, In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing chrono/topes. * community of players (CoPl) * reality (RC) or ontological * imagined (IC) Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a chronotopic theme. There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its opposite. Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. Chronotopes. Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar opposites in your horizon of understanding. A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of players chronotopes. I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar opposites. This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the other side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 12:41 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities Dear Sue and Brian and all, First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I take your response very seriously. I have some questions for clarification and also some more comments regarding what I think is a ?paradigmatic difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two approaches to education that I outlined in my paper. Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! Ana __________ On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis wrote: As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within playworlds, or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and from which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? and more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from very different communities in progressive school education, educational psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently discovered the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently been some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-9781472576 910/> which we published last year [The entire original message is not included.] From edmiston.1@osu.edu Tue Mar 1 19:45:31 2016 From: edmiston.1@osu.edu (Edmiston, Brian W.) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 03:45:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> Hi Larry I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we imagine over material reality so that the meaning of what we do predominates. We we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - that?s what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or stepping ?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being captured by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially pretended to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join in - they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some ?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In a similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really interested in a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to the world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend to talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings meaning to the dialogue ? Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? Brian > On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > Brian, > Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces AT ONCE. This means simultaneously. > You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one time-space being over the other which also indicates the other time-space becomes under. > A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one time-space or the other *at will*. > I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) movement which is meaning making is always *at will*. > This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. > This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. > In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action that occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding discourse? > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Edmiston, Brian W." > Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 6:09 PM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities > > Thanks, Helen > > Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if we were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might mean for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... > > I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 year olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: fabric, pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and relationships we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in a shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to pigs by Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with Circe ? and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do friends do - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, and we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on those tests ...) > > In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a lot, especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are always in two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other at will - like what children do when they play without adults. > > That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of our actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the acts and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others (or often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we can move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two chronotopes but can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events. While at the same time each person is always able to see through the perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like for me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to make new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... > > However, with me present and both playing along with the children and stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) and what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no one is dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose whether or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean (e.g.Circe might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). > > I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each person chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone can step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality happen together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the sense that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had been brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at pictures in the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make to find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children how he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we then embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger boy snuck in to join his friends! > > This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in ?!) > > Brian > > BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and Dramatic Approaches. > > [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] > > Brian Edmiston, PhD > Professor of Drama in Education > Department of Teaching and Learning > Columbus, OH 43210 > edmiston.1@osu.edu > go.osu.edu/edmiston > > 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed, to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, lips, hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his entire self in discourse' > Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 > > On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett > wrote: > > I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the 'imagined > situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' lesson or unit > of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for children to > 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, emotions > and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has agreed that > this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and back to > their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE > lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone steps out of > the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and actions > that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be revisited, > discussed and debated from a more detached position and where > understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and > alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. > > So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined > situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles they are > playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole point is that > everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step out of > the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it made me > feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or "I wonder > what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the session > is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE (done > well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the different > chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes this > possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people are > thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if what they > are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current events > which mean many children have had to experience confusing school lockdown > and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much emphasis on > establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being mutually > created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this > oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing students > with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', and to > contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the lesson as > it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to develop > a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might > potentially be. > > Cheers, > Helen > > > > > > > > -- > *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 > > > The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical > Approach > > Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > > On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane > wrote: > > Dear Larry, > > I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the ideas I > started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right that I > use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my > study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time, space > and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and expectations > that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described > chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and > spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial and > temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete > whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically > visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of > time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). > > And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the literary > work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we always > ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are > laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate to > each other in a different way - depending on a situation. > > You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds > (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in > different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in > different situations - depending on the relationship in which these > chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that when > the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as > ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard, > potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) to > ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the imagined > and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the > dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a > relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to > examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. In that > sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the reality as > a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic > contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to draw the > boundary between them. > > I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world > contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? > > What do you think? > > Ana > > > On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > Ana, > In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing > chrono/topes. > * community of players (CoPl) > * reality (RC) or ontological > * imagined (IC) > > Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of > *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a chronotopic > theme. > There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its > opposite. > Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON > UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are > *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. Chronotopes. > Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar > opposites in your horizon of understanding. > A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of > players chronotopes. > > I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation > of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar > opposites. > This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of > *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side > *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the other > side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. > The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek > classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking > Larry > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 12:41 AM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional > dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning > possibilities > > Dear Sue and Brian and all, > > > > First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I > take your response very seriously. I have some questions for clarification > and also some more comments regarding what I think is a ?paradigmatic > difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two approaches > to education that I outlined in my paper. > > Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! > > > > Ana > > > > > > __________ > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis wrote: > > As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for > educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana Marjanovic-Shane?s > article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our > intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of > drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of > the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look > forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential > overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. > > We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named > ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within playworlds, > or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We > confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and from > which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama > described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? and > more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, > among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from very > different communities in progressive school education, educational > psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently discovered > the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently been > some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book > ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < > http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-9781472576 > 910/> which we published last year > > [The entire original message is not included.] From ablunden@mira.net Tue Mar 1 20:42:22 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:42:22 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Bernie Message-ID: <56D66F2E.60206@mira.net> As a foreigner I can't contribute to Bernie Sanders' campaign because that would risk his disqualification. Is there anyone who can accept money via PayPal and lives in the US who would be willing to channel my donation to Bernie? Andy -- ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ From ablunden@mira.net Tue Mar 1 20:51:02 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:51:02 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Bernie In-Reply-To: <56D66F2E.60206@mira.net> References: <56D66F2E.60206@mira.net> Message-ID: <56D67136.1090403@mira.net> I have a willing volunteer ... thank you! that was quick! andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 2/03/2016 3:42 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > As a foreigner I can't contribute to Bernie Sanders' > campaign because that would risk his disqualification. > Is there anyone who can accept money via PayPal and lives > in the US who would be willing to channel my donation to > Bernie? > Andy From dkirsh@lsu.edu Tue Mar 1 20:56:31 2016 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 04:56:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Bernie In-Reply-To: <56D66F2E.60206@mira.net> References: <56D66F2E.60206@mira.net> Message-ID: Andy, I've been contributing to Bernie's campaign, and making phone calls on his behalf. I'd be glad to. David -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 10:42 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Bernie As a foreigner I can't contribute to Bernie Sanders' campaign because that would risk his disqualification. Is there anyone who can accept money via PayPal and lives in the US who would be willing to channel my donation to Bernie? Andy -- ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Tue Mar 1 21:47:14 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 05:47:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> Message-ID: Brian, Helen, Larry, Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can imagine how excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes and the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions. Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your concept of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP being used. Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in the playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers) are being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than they might in ?real life?. As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at times in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is committed and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess you could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged and committed way. Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play and its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance. In the text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which, as Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child weeps in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. 11). This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism emerging in a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s real-world attitudes and beliefs). Kind regards Sue On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." wrote: >Hi Larry > >I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we imagine >over material reality so that the meaning of what we do predominates. We >we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - that?s >what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that >experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or stepping >?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. > >On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being captured >by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially pretended >to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join in - >they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little >intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some >?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In a >similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really interested in >a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to the >world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend to >talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings meaning >to the dialogue ? > >Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? > >Brian > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: >> >> Brian, >> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces AT >>ONCE. This means simultaneously. >> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one >>time-space being over the other which also indicates the other >>time-space becomes under. >> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one time-space >>or the other *at will*. >> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) movement >>which is meaning making is always *at will*. >> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which >>contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. >> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur >>prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. >> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action that >>occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding discourse? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." >> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >>dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning >>possibilities >> >> Thanks, Helen >> >> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and >>then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) >>collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if we >>were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s >>empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of >>us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re >>experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might mean >>for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... >> >> I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 year >>olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: fabric, >>pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and relationships >>we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in a >>shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to pigs by >>Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to >>convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being >>killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with Circe ? >>and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the >>children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do friends do >>- and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, and >>we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all >>been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on those >>tests ...) >> >> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a lot, >>especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are always in >>two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other at >>will - like what children do when they play without adults. >> >> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of our >>actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the acts >>and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others (or >>often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the >>potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the >>imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we can >>move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two chronotopes but >>can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events. >>While at the same time each person is always able to see through the >>perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like for >>me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to make >>new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... >> >> However, with me present and both playing along with the children and >>stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about >>cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) and >>what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no one is >>dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose whether >>or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean (e.g.Circe >>might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). >> >> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each person >>chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone can >>step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and >>those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality happen >>together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the sense >>that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had been >>brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at pictures in >>the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make to >>find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another >>older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from >>versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children how >>he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we then >>embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger boy >>snuck in to join his friends! >> >> This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in ?!) >> >> Brian >> >> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call >>dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by >>Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and Dramatic >>Approaches. >> >> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] >> >> Brian Edmiston, PhD >> Professor of Drama in Education >> Department of Teaching and Learning >> Columbus, OH 43210 >> edmiston.1@osu.edu >> go.osu.edu/edmiston >> >> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed, >>to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person >>participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, lips, >>hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his >>entire self in discourse' >> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 >> >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett >>> wrote: >> >> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the 'imagined >> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' lesson or >>unit >> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for children to >> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, >>emotions >> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has agreed >>that >> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and back to >> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE >> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone steps >>out of >> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and actions >> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be revisited, >> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where >> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and >> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. >> >> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined >> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles they >>are >> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole point is >>that >> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step out >>of >> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it made me >> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or "I >>wonder >> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the >>session >> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE >>(done >> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the >>different >> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes this >> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people are >> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if what >>they >> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current events >> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school >>lockdown >> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much emphasis on >> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being mutually >> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this >> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing students >> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', and >>to >> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the >>lesson as >> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to >>develop >> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might >> potentially be. >> >> Cheers, >> Helen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *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 >> >> >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>Cultural-Historical >> Approach >> >>>g-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >> >> >> >> >> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane >> wrote: >> >> Dear Larry, >> >> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the ideas >>I >> started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right >>that I >> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my >> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time, >>space >> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and expectations >> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described >> chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and >> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial >>and >> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete >> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically >> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the >>movements of >> time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). >> >> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the literary >> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we >>always >> ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are >> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate to >> each other in a different way - depending on a situation. >> >> You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds >> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in >> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in >> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these >> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that >>when >> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as >> ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard, >> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) to >> ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the imagined >> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the >> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a >> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to >> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. In >>that >> sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the reality >>as >> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic >> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to draw >>the >> boundary between them. >> >> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world >> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? >> >> What do you think? >> >> Ana >> >> >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: >> >> Ana, >> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing >> chrono/topes. >> * community of players (CoPl) >> * reality (RC) or ontological >> * imagined (IC) >> >> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of >> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a >>chronotopic >> theme. >> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its >> opposite. >> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON >> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are >> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. >>Chronotopes. >> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar >> opposites in your horizon of understanding. >> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of >> players chronotopes. >> >> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation >> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar >> opposites. >> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of >> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side >> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the >>other >> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. >> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek >> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking >> Larry >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >> Sent: 2016-03-01 12:41 AM >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning >> possibilities >> >> Dear Sue and Brian and all, >> >> >> >> First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I >> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for >>clarification >> and also some more comments regarding what I think is a ?paradigmatic >> difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two >>approaches >> to education that I outlined in my paper. >> >> Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! >> >> >> >> Ana >> >> >> >> >> >> __________ >> >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis wrote: >> >> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for >> educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana >>Marjanovic-Shane?s >> article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our >> intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of >> drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of >> the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look >> forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential >> overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. >> >> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named >> ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within >>playworlds, >> or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We >> confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and >>from >> which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama >> described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? >>and >> more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, >> among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from >>very >> different communities in progressive school education, educational >> psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently >>discovered >> the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently >>been >> some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book >> ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < >> >>http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257 >>6 >> 910/> which we published last year >> >> [The entire original message is not included.] > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: default[8].xml Type: application/xml Size: 3222 bytes Desc: default[8].xml Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160302/eebfc989/attachment.rdf From anamshane@gmail.com Tue Mar 1 23:08:54 2016 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:08:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would also love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP being used." Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think that we find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is dialogue and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic pedagogy? So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe Dialogic pedagogy? Ana On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis wrote: > Brian, Helen, Larry, > > Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can imagine how > excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what > adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes and > the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions. > > Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your concept > of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different > interpretations and versions of DP being used. > > Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in the > playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers) are > being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than they > might in ?real life?. As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at times > in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is committed > and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess you > could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged and > committed way. > > Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play and > its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he > discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance. In the > text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which, as > Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child weeps > in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. 11). > This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the > concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where > learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding > something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism emerging in > a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s > real-world attitudes and beliefs). > > Kind regards > Sue > > > > > On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." wrote: > > >Hi Larry > > > >I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we imagine > >over material reality so that the meaning of what we do predominates. We > >we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - that?s > >what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that > >experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or stepping > >?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. > > > >On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being captured > >by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially pretended > >to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join in - > >they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little > >intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some > >?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In a > >similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really interested in > >a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to the > >world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend to > >talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings meaning > >to the dialogue ? > > > >Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? > > > >Brian > > > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: > >> > >> Brian, > >> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces AT > >>ONCE. This means simultaneously. > >> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one > >>time-space being over the other which also indicates the other > >>time-space becomes under. > >> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one time-space > >>or the other *at will*. > >> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) movement > >>which is meaning making is always *at will*. > >> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which > >>contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. > >> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur > >>prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. > >> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action that > >>occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding discourse? > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." > >> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM > >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional > >>dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning > >>possibilities > >> > >> Thanks, Helen > >> > >> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and > >>then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) > >>collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if we > >>were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s > >>empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of > >>us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re > >>experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might mean > >>for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... > >> > >> I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 year > >>olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: fabric, > >>pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and relationships > >>we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in a > >>shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to pigs by > >>Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to > >>convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being > >>killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with Circe ? > >>and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the > >>children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do friends do > >>- and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, and > >>we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all > >>been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on those > >>tests ...) > >> > >> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a lot, > >>especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are always in > >>two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other at > >>will - like what children do when they play without adults. > >> > >> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of our > >>actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the acts > >>and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others (or > >>often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the > >>potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the > >>imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we can > >>move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two chronotopes but > >>can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events. > >>While at the same time each person is always able to see through the > >>perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like for > >>me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to make > >>new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... > >> > >> However, with me present and both playing along with the children and > >>stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about > >>cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) and > >>what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no one is > >>dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose whether > >>or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean (e.g.Circe > >>might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). > >> > >> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each person > >>chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone can > >>step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and > >>those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality happen > >>together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the sense > >>that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had been > >>brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at pictures in > >>the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make to > >>find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another > >>older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from > >>versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children how > >>he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we then > >>embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger boy > >>snuck in to join his friends! > >> > >> This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in ?!) > >> > >> Brian > >> > >> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call > >>dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by > >>Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and Dramatic > >>Approaches. > >> > >> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] > >> > >> Brian Edmiston, PhD > >> Professor of Drama in Education > >> Department of Teaching and Learning > >> Columbus, OH 43210 > >> edmiston.1@osu.edu > >> go.osu.edu/edmiston > >> > >> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed, > >>to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person > >>participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, lips, > >>hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his > >>entire self in discourse' > >> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 > >> > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett > >>> wrote: > >> > >> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the 'imagined > >> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' lesson or > >>unit > >> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for children to > >> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, > >>emotions > >> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has agreed > >>that > >> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and back to > >> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE > >> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone steps > >>out of > >> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and actions > >> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be revisited, > >> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where > >> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and > >> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. > >> > >> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined > >> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles they > >>are > >> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole point is > >>that > >> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step out > >>of > >> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it made me > >> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or "I > >>wonder > >> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the > >>session > >> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE > >>(done > >> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the > >>different > >> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes this > >> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people are > >> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if what > >>they > >> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current events > >> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school > >>lockdown > >> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much emphasis on > >> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being mutually > >> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this > >> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing students > >> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', and > >>to > >> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the > >>lesson as > >> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to > >>develop > >> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might > >> potentially be. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Helen > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *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 > >> > >> > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > >>Cultural-Historical > >> Approach > >> > >>< > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learnin > >>g-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane > > >> wrote: > >> > >> Dear Larry, > >> > >> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the ideas > >>I > >> started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right > >>that I > >> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my > >> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time, > >>space > >> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and expectations > >> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described > >> chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and > >> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial > >>and > >> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete > >> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically > >> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the > >>movements of > >> time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). > >> > >> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the literary > >> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we > >>always > >> ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are > >> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate to > >> each other in a different way - depending on a situation. > >> > >> You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds > >> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in > >> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in > >> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these > >> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that > >>when > >> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as > >> ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard, > >> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) to > >> ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the imagined > >> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the > >> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a > >> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to > >> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. In > >>that > >> sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the reality > >>as > >> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic > >> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to draw > >>the > >> boundary between them. > >> > >> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world > >> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Ana > >> > >> > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: > >> > >> Ana, > >> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing > >> chrono/topes. > >> * community of players (CoPl) > >> * reality (RC) or ontological > >> * imagined (IC) > >> > >> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of > >> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a > >>chronotopic > >> theme. > >> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its > >> opposite. > >> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON > >> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are > >> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. > >>Chronotopes. > >> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar > >> opposites in your horizon of understanding. > >> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of > >> players chronotopes. > >> > >> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation > >> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar > >> opposites. > >> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of > >> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side > >> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the > >>other > >> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. > >> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek > >> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking > >> Larry > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > >> Sent: 2016-03-01 12:41 AM > >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional > >> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning > >> possibilities > >> > >> Dear Sue and Brian and all, > >> > >> > >> > >> First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I > >> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for > >>clarification > >> and also some more comments regarding what I think is a ?paradigmatic > >> difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two > >>approaches > >> to education that I outlined in my paper. > >> > >> Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! > >> > >> > >> > >> Ana > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> __________ > >> > >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis wrote: > >> > >> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for > >> educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana > >>Marjanovic-Shane?s > >> article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our > >> intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding of > >> drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some of > >> the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we look > >> forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as potential > >> overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. > >> > >> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named > >> ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within > >>playworlds, > >> or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. We > >> confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and > >>from > >> which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama > >> described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? > >>and > >> more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, > >> among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from > >>very > >> different communities in progressive school education, educational > >> psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently > >>discovered > >> the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently > >>been > >> some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the book > >> ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < > >> > >> > http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257 > >>6 > >> 910/> which we published last year > >> > >> [The entire original message is not included.] > > > > > > -- *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu) Associate Professor of Education Chestnut Hill College phone: 267-334-2905 From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Mar 2 07:02:53 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:02:53 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities In-Reply-To: References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> Message-ID: <56d700ce.878b420a.710ee.ffffa85e@mx.google.com> Ana, I have a concept of dialogue that includes the notion of *inter/subjectivity* but I believe the general meaning of this concept assumes we start with two separate embodied bodies who then enter into a place or zone to create or construct shared worlds. This puts the subject over and the place under in the intersubjective time-space. I want to start within places (as both material and psychic place) and these places are where intersubjective phenomena manifest within awareness (perceiving/movement) prior to being reflected *upon* through discourse/rhetoric. A key notion is the *speaking subject* within places who is invited or received into *voice* and this contrasts with finding one's own authentic voice existing as a subject first and projecting one*s unique voice into the intersubjective place. This version of intersubjectivity is a focus on legitimate *rights* which each subject inalienably *possesses* as a right. So when playing with notions of endowing or embodying the focus on bodies *made flesh* extends beyond the subjective person to include embodied or endowed places within which intersubjective perceiving/moving occurs manifesting experiences of subjectivity. This may occur at the level of awareness prior to becoming consciously aware and articulating then articulating this awareness. In this process identity and subjectivity emerge in the moment of the *speaking subject* occurring within psychic/material places. I also believe these places are always both imaginal and material places that are structured within different boundary markings of the horizon of places with differing degrees of the imaginal or the real being foregrounded (and the other aspect thereforewithdraws into the background as *absence* from presence. Dialogue as intersubjective phenomena can be imagined as either foreground subjects who bring forth their own unique speaking voice as embodied speaking then projecting into shared places. This imagines two unique subjects as the foreground. Intersubjective can also imagine places as being foregrounded as embodied and endowed dwelling places and from these psychic/material places *speaking voices* emerge into ontological existence within embodied endowed places that matter. The focus shifts or inclines or leans into developing places as foregrounded and what occurs in these places manifests intersubjectively as subjectivity. What is imagined as legitimate rights attaches to these concrete/imaginal places. The example of Merleau-Ponty and the phantom limb phenomena and how the virtual/real box transforms subjectivity and embodied identity by placing the limb in the imaginal/real box as framework (both imaginal and real simultaneously). Dialogue must *give place a chance* Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 11:10 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities Dear all, Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would also love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP being used." Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think that we find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is dialogue and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic pedagogy? So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe Dialogic pedagogy? Ana On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis wrote: > Brian, Helen, Larry, > > Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can imagine how > excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what > adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes and > the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions. > > Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your concept > of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different > interpretations and versions of DP being used. > > Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in the > playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers) are > being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than they > might in ?real life?. As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at times > in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is committed > and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess you > could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged and > committed way. > > Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play and > its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he > discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance. In the > text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which, as > Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child weeps > in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. 11). > This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the > concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where > learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding > something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism emerging in > a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s > real-world attitudes and beliefs). > > Kind regards > Sue > > > > > On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." wrote: > > >Hi Larry > > > >I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we imagine > >over material reality so that the meaning of what we do predominates. We > >we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - that?s > >what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that > >experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or stepping > >?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. > > > >On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being captured > >by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially pretended > >to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join in - > >they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little > >intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some > >?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In a > >similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really interested in > >a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to the > >world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend to > >talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings meaning > >to the dialogue ? > > > >Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? > > > >Brian > > > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: > >> > >> Brian, > >> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces AT > >>ONCE. This means simultaneously. > >> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one > >>time-space being over the other which also indicates the other > >>time-space becomes under. > >> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one time-space > >>or the other *at will*. > >> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) movement > >>which is meaning making is always *at will*. > >> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which > >>contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. > >> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur > >>prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. > >> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action that > >>occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding discourse? > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." > >> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM > >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional > >>dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning > >>possibilities > >> > >> Thanks, Helen > >> > >> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and > >>then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) > >>collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if we > >>were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s > >>empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of > >>us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re > >>experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might mean > >>for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... > >> > >> I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 year > >>olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: fabric, > >>pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and relationships > >>we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in a > >>shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to pigs by > >>Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to > >>convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being > >>killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with Circe ? > >>and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the > >>children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do friends do > >>- and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, and > >>we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all > >>been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on those > >>tests ...) > >> > >> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a lot, > >>especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are always in > >>two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other at > >>will - like what children do when they play without adults. > >> > >> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of our > >>actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the acts > >>and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others (or > >>often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the > >>potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the > >>imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we can > >>move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two chronotopes but > >>can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events. > >>While at the same time each person is always able to see through the > >>perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like for > >>me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to make > >>new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... > >> > >> However, with me present and both playing along with the children and > >>stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about > >>cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) and > >>what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no one is > >>dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose whether > >>or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean (e.g.Circe > >>might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). > >> > >> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each person > >>chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone can > >>step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and > >>those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality happen > >>together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the sense > >>that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had been > >>brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at pictures in > >>the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make to > >>find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another > >>older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from > >>versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children how > >>he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we then > >>embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger boy > >>snuck in to join his friends! > >> > >> This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in ?!) > >> > >> Brian > >> > >> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call > >>dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by > >>Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and Dramatic > >>Approaches. > >> > >> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] > >> > >> Brian Edmiston, PhD > >> Professor of Drama in Education > >> Department of Teaching and Learning > >> Columbus, OH 43210 > >> edmiston.1@osu.edu > >> go.osu.edu/edmiston > >> > >> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed, > >>to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person > >>participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, lips, > >>hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his > >>entire self in discourse' > >> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 > >> > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett > >>> wrote: > >> > >> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the 'imagined > >> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' lesson or > >>unit > >> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for children to > >> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, > >>emotions > >> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has agreed > >>that > >> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and back to > >> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE > >> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone steps > >>out of > >> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and actions > >> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be revisited, > >> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where > >> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and > >> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. > >> > >> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined > >> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles they > >>are > >> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole point is > >>that > >> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step out > >>of > >> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it made me > >> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or "I > >>wonder > >> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the > >>session > >> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE > >>(done > >> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the > >>different > >> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes this > >> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people are > >> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if what > >>they > >> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current events > >> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school > >>lockdown > >> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much emphasis on > >> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being mutually > >> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this > >> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing students > >> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', and > >>to > >> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the > >>lesson as > >> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to > >>develop > >> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might > >> potentially be. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Helen > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *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 > >> > >> > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > >>Cultural-Historical > >> Approach > >> > >>< > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learnin > >>g-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane > > >> wrote: > >> > >> Dear Larry, > >> > >> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the ideas > >>I > >> started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right > >>that I > >> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my > >> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time, > >>space > >> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and expectations > >> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described > >> chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and > >> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial > >>and > >> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete > >> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically > >> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the > >>movements of > >> time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). > >> > >> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the literary > >> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we > >>always > >> ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are > >> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate to > >> each other in a different way - depending on a situation. > >> > >> You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds > >> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in > >> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in > >> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these > >> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that > >>when > >> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as > >> ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard, > >> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) to > >> ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the imagined > >> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the > >> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a > >> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to > >> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. In > >>that > >> sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the reality > >>as > >> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic > >> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to draw > >>the > >> boundary between them. > >> > >> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world > >> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Ana > >> > >> > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: > >> > >> Ana, > >> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing > >> chrono/topes. > >> * community of players (CoPl) > >> * reality (RC) or ontological > >> * imagined (IC) > >> > >> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of > >> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a > >>chronotopic > >> theme. > >> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its > >> opposite. > >> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON > >> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are > >> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. > >>Chronotopes. > >> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar > >> opposites in your horizon of understanding. > >> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of > >> players chronotopes. > >> > >> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation > >> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar > >> opposites. > >> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of > >> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side > >> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the > >>other > >> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. > >> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek > >> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking > >> Larry > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > >> Sent: 2016-03-01 12:41 AM > >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional > >> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning > >> possibilities > >> > >> Dear Sue and Brian and all, > >> > >> > >> > >> First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I > >> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for > >>clarification > >> and also s [The entire original message is not included.] From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Mar 2 08:06:15 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 08:06:15 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyondoppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promotelearningpossibilities In-Reply-To: <56d700ce.878b420a.710ee.ffffa85e@mx.google.com> References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> <56d700ce.878b420a.710ee.ffffa85e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <56d70f9f.9b0e620a.b05b6.6043@mx.google.com> Ana, One more reflection. You contrast what is *in focus* IS either a suspension of disbelief OR a suspension of belief. I have a bias to understand moving into and out of focus the *as-if* and the *what-if*. To focus on either one side or the other of this boundary marker as foregroundd leaves the other side in the shadows or withdrawn or absent. I want to see being *in focus* as a fluid boundary marking. Both/and prior to either/or. The actual is imaginal AND the imaginal is actual. Focusing on both. Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Lplarry" Sent: ?2016-?03-?02 7:03 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyondoppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promotelearningpossibilities Ana, I have a concept of dialogue that includes the notion of *inter/subjectivity* but I believe the general meaning of this concept assumes we start with two separate embodied bodies who then enter into a place or zone to create or construct shared worlds. This puts the subject over and the place under in the intersubjective time-space. I want to start within places (as both material and psychic place) and these places are where intersubjective phenomena manifest within awareness (perceiving/movement) prior to being reflected *upon* through discourse/rhetoric. A key notion is the *speaking subject* within places who is invited or received into *voice* and this contrasts with finding one's own authentic voice existing as a subject first and projecting one*s unique voice into the intersubjective place. This version of intersubjectivity is a focus on legitimate *rights* which each subject inalienably *possesses* as a right. So when playing with notions of endowing or embodying the focus on bodies *made flesh* extends beyond the subjective person to include embodied or endowed places within which intersubjective perceiving/moving occurs manifesting experiences of subjectivity. This may occur at the level of awareness prior to becoming consciously aware and articulating then articulating this awareness. In this process identity and subjectivity emerge in the moment of the *speaking subject* occurring within psychic/material places. I also believe these places are always both imaginal and material places that are structured within different boundary markings of the horizon of places with differing degrees of the imaginal or the real being foregrounded (and the other aspect thereforewithdraws into the background as *absence* from presence. Dialogue as intersubjective phenomena can be imagined as either foreground subjects who bring forth their own unique speaking voice as embodied speaking then projecting into shared places. This imagines two unique subjects as the foreground. Intersubjective can also imagine places as being foregrounded as embodied and endowed dwelling places and from these psychic/material places *speaking voices* emerge into ontological existence within embodied endowed places that matter. The focus shifts or inclines or leans into developing places as foregrounded and what occurs in these places manifests intersubjectively as subjectivity. What is imagined as legitimate rights attaches to these concrete/imaginal places. The example of Merleau-Ponty and the phantom limb phenomena and how the virtual/real box transforms subjectivity and embodied identity by placing the limb in the imaginal/real box as framework (both imaginal and real simultaneously). Dialogue must *give place a chance* Larry From: Ana Marjanovic-Shane Sent: ?2016-?03-?01 11:10 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities Dear all, Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would also love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP being used." Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think that we find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is dialogue and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic pedagogy? So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe Dialogic pedagogy? Ana On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis wrote: > Brian, Helen, Larry, > > Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can imagine how > excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what > adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes and > the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions. > > Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your concept > of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different > interpretations and versions of DP being used. > > Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in the > playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers) are > being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than they > might in ?real life?. As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at times > in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is committed > and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess you > could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged and > committed way. > > Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play and > its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he > discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance. In the > text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which, as > Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child weeps > in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. 11). > This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the > concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where > learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding > something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism emerging in > a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s > real-world attitudes and beliefs). > > Kind regards > Sue > > > > > On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." wrote: > > >Hi Larry > > > >I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we imagine > >over material reality so that the meaning of what we do predominates. We > >we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - that?s > >what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that > >experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or stepping > >?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. > > > >On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being captured > >by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially pretended > >to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join in - > >they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little > >intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some > >?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In a > >similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really interested in > >a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to the > >world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend to > >talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings meaning > >to the dialogue ? > > > >Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? > > > >Brian > > > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: > >> > >> Brian, > >> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces AT > >>ONCE. This means simultaneously. > >> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one > >>time-space being over the other which also indicates the other > >>time-space becomes under. > >> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one time-space > >>or the other *at will*. > >> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) movement > >>which is meaning making is always *at will*. > >> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which > >>contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. > >> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur > >>prior to developing s [The entire original message is not included.] From ewall@umich.edu Wed Mar 2 08:45:17 2016 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:45:17 -0600 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: 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-pra >>>>> 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.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about 5 >>>>>> minutes into this. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Wed Mar 2 12:26:00 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 20:26:00 +0000 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: 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.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about >>>>>>>5 >>>>>>> minutes into this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Thu Mar 3 07:59:44 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 10:59:44 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Education Conference Athens Greece Message-ID: <3oa5i5acnw4fynccvrm3i8vr.1457020782837@email.android.com> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Dr. Alexander Makedon" Date: 3/3/2016 9:13 AM (GMT-05:00) To: pmocombe@mocombeian.com Subject: Education Conference Athens Greece Dear Colleague,?The Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER), a world association of academics and researchers, organizes its?18th?Annual International Conference on Education, 16-19 May 2016, Athens, Greece. Please submit a 300-word abstract before?14 March 2016, by email (atiner@atiner.com), addressed to?Dr. Alexander?Makedon, Head, Education Research Unit, ATINER & Professor of Philosophy of Education, Arellano University, Philippines.??Please include with this order: Title of Paper, First Name, Family name of all co-authors, Current Position of all co-authors, Institutional Affiliation (University/Organization) of all co-authors, Country of all co-authors, an email address of all co-authors and at least 3 keywords that best describe the subject of your submission.?Decisions will be reached within four weeks of your submission.?Should you wish to participate in the Conference as a chair of a session, evaluate papers which are to be included in the conference proceedings or books, contribute to the editing of a book, or any other contribution, please send an email to?Dr. Gregory T. Papanikos, President, ATINER & Honorary Professor, University of Stirling, UK (gregory.papanikos@stir.ac.uk).?If you have already submitted an abstract, please ignore this call for papers. ATINER | 8 Valaoritou Street, Kolonaki | Athens | Greece Unsubscribe From ewall@umich.edu Thu Mar 3 09:21:06 2016 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:21:06 -0600 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: 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.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to about >>>>>>>> 5 >>>>>>>> minutes into this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Mar 3 09:43:34 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:43:34 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Evicting St. John Coltrane Message-ID: Hi esteemed XMCArs, FYI: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/mar/03/st-john-coltrane-church-san-francisco-eviction-video Kind egads, Annalisa From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Thu Mar 3 15:16:18 2016 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:16:18 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> Message-ID: Hi Ana, Sue and others Apologies for the delay in responding to your question about definitions of dialogue and dialogic pedagogy. I have been teaching and in meetings flat out for the past few days (hopefully dialogically!). I have an article about to be published in "Studying Teacher Education" in which I say: "Theoretically influenced by the work of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, Dewey and Friere, and variously referred to as Dialogic instruction (Nystrand, 1997), Dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999), Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; Lyle, 2008), Dialogic pedagogies (Edwards-Groves, Anstey, & Bull, 2014) etc., these approaches all share an understanding of learning as the active co-construction of meaning developed through joint activity and language interactions between and amongst teachers and learners. Knowledge is therefore not regarded as a fixed entity to be transmitted from teacher to learner, but a fluid negotiation, re-creation and expansion of cultural, collective and individual ideas, actions and meanings; and as such requires different pedagogic strategies to ?traditional? transmissive/monologic teaching." The article is a self-study of my own journey towards trying to teach in a more dialogical way. I have been strongly influenced by Bob Fecho's work and his position that we can really only hope to be 'more dialogical' in classrooms, as our professional responsibilities as teachers mean that we must be held accountable for ensuring that curricula aims are also met. This certainly doesn't mean that we can't encourage critique, debate and expansion of those aims, but we do have to remain cognisant of them and constantly work within the tension of institutional requirements and completely free-reign dialogue. We also have professional and moral responsibilities to ensure that we are creating an environment in which students feel 'safe to' be able to engage in such critique, debate and expansion as this inevitably exposes them to risks that they have not been expected to face in more traditional transmissive/monologic classrooms. It takes time to build trust, change expectations, engender confidence, develop skills etc so that our classrooms can become more dialogical in ways that expand understanding and transform social practices rather than denigrate into hurtful arguments and personal attacks. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but we all have a right to contribute and to have our contribution heard and considered respectfully. In my view, there is nothing wrong with a teacher contributing their own understanding (which may or may not come from a place of greater experience or knowledge) so long as the door (mind!) is always open to the possibility that their may be other ways to see, do or explain things. Not to do so would be an abdication of our professional responsibility. It is only a problem if the teacher's way is seen as the only way. However, helping students (and especially student teachers) to see that is really challenging...and continues to provide plenty of research interest for me. All I've got time for at the minute... Cheers, Helen -- *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 The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers On 2 March 2016 at 18:08, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote: > Dear all, > > Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would also > love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as it is > clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP > being used." > > Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of > dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think that we > find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is dialogue > and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic pedagogy? > > So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe Dialogic > pedagogy? > > Ana > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis wrote: > > > Brian, Helen, Larry, > > > > Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can imagine > how > > excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what > > adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes and > > the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions. > > > > Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your > concept > > of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different > > interpretations and versions of DP being used. > > > > Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in > the > > playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers) > are > > being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than > they > > might in ?real life?. As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at times > > in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is committed > > and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess you > > could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged and > > committed way. > > > > Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play and > > its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he > > discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance. In the > > text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which, as > > Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child weeps > > in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. > 11). > > This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the > > concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where > > learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding > > something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism emerging in > > a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s > > real-world attitudes and beliefs). > > > > Kind regards > > Sue > > > > > > > > > > On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." wrote: > > > > >Hi Larry > > > > > >I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we > imagine > > >over material reality so that the meaning of what we do predominates. We > > >we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - that?s > > >what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that > > >experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or stepping > > >?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. > > > > > >On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being captured > > >by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially pretended > > >to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join in - > > >they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little > > >intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some > > >?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In a > > >similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really interested in > > >a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to the > > >world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend to > > >talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings meaning > > >to the dialogue ? > > > > > >Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? > > > > > >Brian > > > > > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > >> > > >> Brian, > > >> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces AT > > >>ONCE. This means simultaneously. > > >> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one > > >>time-space being over the other which also indicates the other > > >>time-space becomes under. > > >> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one time-space > > >>or the other *at will*. > > >> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) movement > > >>which is meaning making is always *at will*. > > >> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which > > >>contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. > > >> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur > > >>prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. > > >> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action that > > >>occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding discourse? > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." > > >> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM > > >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional > > >>dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning > > >>possibilities > > >> > > >> Thanks, Helen > > >> > > >> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and > > >>then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) > > >>collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if we > > >>were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s > > >>empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of > > >>us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re > > >>experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might mean > > >>for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... > > >> > > >> I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 year > > >>olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: fabric, > > >>pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and relationships > > >>we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in a > > >>shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to pigs by > > >>Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to > > >>convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being > > >>killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with Circe > ? > > >>and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the > > >>children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do friends > do > > >>- and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, and > > >>we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all > > >>been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on those > > >>tests ...) > > >> > > >> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a lot, > > >>especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are always > in > > >>two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other at > > >>will - like what children do when they play without adults. > > >> > > >> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of > our > > >>actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the acts > > >>and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others (or > > >>often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the > > >>potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the > > >>imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we can > > >>move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two chronotopes > but > > >>can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events. > > >>While at the same time each person is always able to see through the > > >>perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like for > > >>me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to > make > > >>new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... > > >> > > >> However, with me present and both playing along with the children and > > >>stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about > > >>cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) > and > > >>what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no one > is > > >>dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose > whether > > >>or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean > (e.g.Circe > > >>might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). > > >> > > >> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each person > > >>chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone can > > >>step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and > > >>those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality happen > > >>together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the sense > > >>that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had been > > >>brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at pictures in > > >>the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make to > > >>find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another > > >>older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from > > >>versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children how > > >>he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we > then > > >>embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger boy > > >>snuck in to join his friends! > > >> > > >> This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in > ?!) > > >> > > >> Brian > > >> > > >> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call > > >>dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by > > >>Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and Dramatic > > >>Approaches. > > >> > > >> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] > > >> > > >> Brian Edmiston, PhD > > >> Professor of Drama in Education > > >> Department of Teaching and Learning > > >> Columbus, OH 43210 > > >> edmiston.1@osu.edu > > >> go.osu.edu/edmiston > > >> > > >> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed, > > >>to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person > > >>participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, lips, > > >>hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his > > >>entire self in discourse' > > >> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 > > >> > > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett > > >>> wrote: > > >> > > >> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the 'imagined > > >> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' lesson or > > >>unit > > >> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for children > to > > >> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, > > >>emotions > > >> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has agreed > > >>that > > >> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and back > to > > >> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE > > >> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone steps > > >>out of > > >> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and > actions > > >> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be revisited, > > >> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where > > >> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and > > >> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. > > >> > > >> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined > > >> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles they > > >>are > > >> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole point is > > >>that > > >> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step out > > >>of > > >> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it made > me > > >> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or "I > > >>wonder > > >> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the > > >>session > > >> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE > > >>(done > > >> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the > > >>different > > >> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes > this > > >> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people are > > >> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if what > > >>they > > >> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current events > > >> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school > > >>lockdown > > >> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much emphasis on > > >> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being mutually > > >> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this > > >> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing > students > > >> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', and > > >>to > > >> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the > > >>lesson as > > >> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to > > >>develop > > >> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might > > >> potentially be. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Helen > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> *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 > > >> > > >> > > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A > > >>Cultural-Historical > > >> Approach > > >> > > >>< > > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learnin > > >>g-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> > > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane < > anamshane@gmail.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear Larry, > > >> > > >> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the > ideas > > >>I > > >> started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right > > >>that I > > >> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my > > >> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time, > > >>space > > >> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and > expectations > > >> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described > > >> chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of temporal > and > > >> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial > > >>and > > >> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete > > >> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically > > >> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the > > >>movements of > > >> time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). > > >> > > >> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the > literary > > >> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we > > >>always > > >> ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are > > >> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate > to > > >> each other in a different way - depending on a situation. > > >> > > >> You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds > > >> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in > > >> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in > > >> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these > > >> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that > > >>when > > >> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as > > >> ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard, > > >> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) > to > > >> ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the > imagined > > >> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the > > >> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a > > >> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to > > >> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. In > > >>that > > >> sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the > reality > > >>as > > >> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic > > >> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to > draw > > >>the > > >> boundary between them. > > >> > > >> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world > > >> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > >> > > >> Ana > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > >> > > >> Ana, > > >> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing > > >> chrono/topes. > > >> * community of players (CoPl) > > >> * reality (RC) or ontological > > >> * imagined (IC) > > >> > > >> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme > of > > >> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a > > >>chronotopic > > >> theme. > > >> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its > > >> opposite. > > >> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR > SUMMON > > >> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are > > >> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. > > >>Chronotopes. > > >> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar > > >> opposites in your horizon of understanding. > > >> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of > > >> players chronotopes. > > >> > > >> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a > relation > > >> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar > > >> opposites. > > >> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of > > >> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side > > >> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the > > >>other > > >> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. > > >> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek > > >> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking > > >> Larry > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" > > >> Sent: 2016-03-01 12:41 AM > > >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional > > >> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote > learning > > >> possibilities > > >> > > >> Dear Sue and Brian and all, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. > I > > >> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for > > >>clarification > > >> and also some more comments regarding what I think is a ?paradigmatic > > >> difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two > > >>approaches > > >> to education that I outlined in my paper. > > >> > > >> Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Ana > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> __________ > > >> > > >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis wrote: > > >> > > >> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for > > >> educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana > > >>Marjanovic-Shane?s > > >> article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. Our > > >> intention is to provide some of our shared professional understanding > of > > >> drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate some > of > > >> the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we > look > > >> forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as > potential > > >> overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. > > >> > > >> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field named > > >> ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within > > >>playworlds, > > >> or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by Marjanovic-Shane. > We > > >> confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about and > > >>from > > >> which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama > > >> described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational drama? > > >>and > > >> more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic inquiry, > > >> among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen from > > >>very > > >> different communities in progressive school education, educational > > >> psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently > > >>discovered > > >> the power of using drama in their practice. There have only recently > > >>been > > >> some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the > book > > >> ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < > > >> > > >> > > > http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257 > > >>6 > > >> 910/> which we published last year > > >> > > >> [The entire original message is not included.] > > > > > > > > > > -- > *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* > Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu) > Associate Professor of Education > Chestnut Hill College > phone: 267-334-2905 > From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Thu Mar 3 18:26:10 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:26:10 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> Message-ID: Thank you Helen, I appreciate your finding the time to post this as it is indeed that crazy time of year with term starting. I find this DP approach conceivable and doable in terms of teachers working within the constraints and professional responsibilities now required in most schools/education sites. Teachers as well as students have to work on terms and within parameters that are not necessarily of their own making, but the point of what you are saying is that through a dialogic process they can make these situations more dialogic and perhaps more 'their own'. Finding the points of connection and suitable animating ideas/actions is then often the key for the teacher who wants to make this process meaningful for both themselves and their students. I look forward to seeing your article once it?s published. Kind regards Sue On 4/03/2016 9:16 am, "Helen Grimmett" wrote: >Hi Ana, Sue and others > >Apologies for the delay in responding to your question about definitions >of >dialogue and dialogic pedagogy. I have been teaching and in meetings flat >out for the past few days (hopefully dialogically!). > >I have an article about to be published in "Studying Teacher Education" in >which I say: > >"Theoretically influenced by the work of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, Dewey and >Friere, and variously referred to as Dialogic instruction (Nystrand, >1997), >Dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999), Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; Lyle, >2008), Dialogic pedagogies (Edwards-Groves, Anstey, & Bull, 2014) etc., >these approaches all share an understanding of learning as the active >co-construction of meaning developed through joint activity and language >interactions between and amongst teachers and learners. Knowledge is >therefore not regarded as a fixed entity to be transmitted from teacher to >learner, but a fluid negotiation, re-creation and expansion of cultural, >collective and individual ideas, actions and meanings; and as such >requires >different pedagogic strategies to ?traditional? transmissive/monologic >teaching." > > The article is a self-study of my own journey towards trying to teach in >a >more dialogical way. I have been strongly influenced by Bob Fecho's work >and his position that we can really only hope to be 'more dialogical' in >classrooms, as our professional responsibilities as teachers mean that we >must be held accountable for ensuring that curricula aims are also met. >This certainly doesn't mean that we can't encourage critique, debate and >expansion of those aims, but we do have to remain cognisant of them and >constantly work within the tension of institutional requirements and >completely free-reign dialogue. > >We also have professional and moral responsibilities to ensure that we are >creating an environment in which students feel 'safe to' be able to engage >in such critique, debate and expansion as this inevitably exposes them to >risks that they have not been expected to face in more traditional >transmissive/monologic classrooms. It takes time to build trust, change >expectations, engender confidence, develop skills etc so that our >classrooms can become more dialogical in ways that expand understanding >and >transform social practices rather than denigrate into hurtful arguments >and >personal attacks. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but we all have a >right to contribute and to have our contribution heard and considered >respectfully. > >In my view, there is nothing wrong with a teacher contributing their own >understanding (which may or may not come from a place of greater >experience >or knowledge) so long as the door (mind!) is always open to the >possibility >that their may be other ways to see, do or explain things. Not to do so >would be an abdication of our professional responsibility. It is only a >problem if the teacher's way is seen as the only way. However, helping >students (and especially student teachers) to see that is really >challenging...and continues to provide plenty of research interest for me. > > >All I've got time for at the minute... >Cheers, >Helen > > > >-- >*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 > > >The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical >Approach >-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> >Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers > > > > >On 2 March 2016 at 18:08, Ana Marjanovic-Shane >wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would also >> love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as it >>is >> clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP >> being used." >> >> Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of >> dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think >>that we >> find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is dialogue >> and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic >>pedagogy? >> >> So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe Dialogic >> pedagogy? >> >> Ana >> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis wrote: >> >> > Brian, Helen, Larry, >> > >> > Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can imagine >> how >> > excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what >> > adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes >>and >> > the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions. >> > >> > Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your >> concept >> > of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different >> > interpretations and versions of DP being used. >> > >> > Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in >> the >> > playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers) >> are >> > being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than >> they >> > might in ?real life?. As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at >>times >> > in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is >>committed >> > and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess >>you >> > could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged >>and >> > committed way. >> > >> > Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play >>and >> > its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he >> > discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance. In the >> > text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which, >>as >> > Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child >>weeps >> > in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. >> 11). >> > This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the >> > concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where >> > learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding >> > something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism >>emerging in >> > a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s >> > real-world attitudes and beliefs). >> > >> > Kind regards >> > Sue >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." wrote: >> > >> > >Hi Larry >> > > >> > >I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we >> imagine >> > >over material reality so that the meaning of what we do >>predominates. We >> > >we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - >>that?s >> > >what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that >> > >experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or >>stepping >> > >?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. >> > > >> > >On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being >>captured >> > >by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially >>pretended >> > >to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join >>in - >> > >they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little >> > >intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some >> > >?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In >>a >> > >similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really >>interested in >> > >a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to >>the >> > >world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend >>to >> > >talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings >>meaning >> > >to the dialogue ? >> > > >> > >Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? >> > > >> > >Brian >> > > >> > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Brian, >> > >> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces >>AT >> > >>ONCE. This means simultaneously. >> > >> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one >> > >>time-space being over the other which also indicates the other >> > >>time-space becomes under. >> > >> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one >>time-space >> > >>or the other *at will*. >> > >> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) >>movement >> > >>which is meaning making is always *at will*. >> > >> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which >> > >>contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. >> > >> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur >> > >>prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. >> > >> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action >>that >> > >>occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding >>discourse? >> > >> >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> > >> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." >> > >> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM >> > >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >> > >>dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote >>learning >> > >>possibilities >> > >> >> > >> Thanks, Helen >> > >> >> > >> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and >> > >>then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) >> > >>collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if >>we >> > >>were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s >> > >>empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of >> > >>us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re >> > >>experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might >>mean >> > >>for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... >> > >> >> > >> I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 >>year >> > >>olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: >>fabric, >> > >>pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and >>relationships >> > >>we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in a >> > >>shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to >>pigs by >> > >>Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to >> > >>convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being >> > >>killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with >>Circe >> ? >> > >>and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the >> > >>children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do >>friends >> do >> > >>- and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, >>and >> > >>we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all >> > >>been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on >>those >> > >>tests ...) >> > >> >> > >> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a >>lot, >> > >>especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are >>always >> in >> > >>two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other >>at >> > >>will - like what children do when they play without adults. >> > >> >> > >> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of >> our >> > >>actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the >>acts >> > >>and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others (or >> > >>often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the >> > >>potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the >> > >>imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we >>can >> > >>move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two chronotopes >> but >> > >>can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events. >> > >>While at the same time each person is always able to see through the >> > >>perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like >>for >> > >>me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to >> make >> > >>new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... >> > >> >> > >> However, with me present and both playing along with the children >>and >> > >>stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about >> > >>cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) >> and >> > >>what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no >>one >> is >> > >>dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose >> whether >> > >>or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean >> (e.g.Circe >> > >>might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). >> > >> >> > >> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each >>person >> > >>chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone >>can >> > >>step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and >> > >>those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality >>happen >> > >>together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the >>sense >> > >>that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had >>been >> > >>brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at >>pictures in >> > >>the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make >>to >> > >>find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another >> > >>older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from >> > >>versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children >>how >> > >>he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we >> then >> > >>embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger >>boy >> > >>snuck in to join his friends! >> > >> >> > >> This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in >> ?!) >> > >> >> > >> Brian >> > >> >> > >> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call >> > >>dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by >> > >>Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and >>Dramatic >> > >>Approaches. >> > >> >> > >> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] >> > >> >> > >> Brian Edmiston, PhD >> > >> Professor of Drama in Education >> > >> Department of Teaching and Learning >> > >> Columbus, OH 43210 >> > >> edmiston.1@osu.edu >> > >> go.osu.edu/edmiston >> > >> >> > >> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to >>heed, >> > >>to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person >> > >>participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, >>lips, >> > >>hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his >> > >>entire self in discourse' >> > >> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 >> > >> >> > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett >> > >>> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the >>'imagined >> > >> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' >>lesson or >> > >>unit >> > >> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for >>children >> to >> > >> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, >> > >>emotions >> > >> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has >>agreed >> > >>that >> > >> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and >>back >> to >> > >> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE >> > >> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone >>steps >> > >>out of >> > >> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and >> actions >> > >> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be >>revisited, >> > >> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where >> > >> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and >> > >> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. >> > >> >> > >> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined >> > >> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles >>they >> > >>are >> > >> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole >>point is >> > >>that >> > >> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step >>out >> > >>of >> > >> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it >>made >> me >> > >> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or >>"I >> > >>wonder >> > >> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the >> > >>session >> > >> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE >> > >>(done >> > >> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the >> > >>different >> > >> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes >> this >> > >> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people >>are >> > >> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if >>what >> > >>they >> > >> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current >>events >> > >> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school >> > >>lockdown >> > >> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much >>emphasis on >> > >> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being >>mutually >> > >> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this >> > >> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing >> students >> > >> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', >>and >> > >>to >> > >> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the >> > >>lesson as >> > >> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to >> > >>develop >> > >> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might >> > >> potentially be. >> > >> >> > >> Cheers, >> > >> Helen >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> *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 >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >> > >>Cultural-Historical >> > >> Approach >> > >> >> > >>< >> > >>https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learnin >> > >>g-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> >> > >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane < >> anamshane@gmail.com >> > > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Dear Larry, >> > >> >> > >> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the >> ideas >> > >>I >> > >> started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right >> > >>that I >> > >> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts >>in my >> > >> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of >>time, >> > >>space >> > >> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and >> expectations >> > >> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described >> > >> chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of >>temporal >> and >> > >> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . >>[S]patial >> > >>and >> > >> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, >>concrete >> > >> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes >>artistically >> > >> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the >> > >>movements of >> > >> time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). >> > >> >> > >> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the >> literary >> > >> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - >>we >> > >>always >> > >> ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they >>are >> > >> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes >>relate >> to >> > >> each other in a different way - depending on a situation. >> > >> >> > >> You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds >> > >> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in >> > >> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - >>in >> > >> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these >> > >> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is >>that >> > >>when >> > >> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as >> > >> ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is >>hard, >> > >> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate >>(non-normative) >> to >> > >> ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the >> imagined >> > >> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that >>the >> > >> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a >> > >> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their >>participants to >> > >> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. >>In >> > >>that >> > >> sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the >> reality >> > >>as >> > >> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic >> > >> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to >> draw >> > >>the >> > >> boundary between them. >> > >> >> > >> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world >> > >> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? >> > >> >> > >> What do you think? >> > >> >> > >> Ana >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Ana, >> > >> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing >> > >> chrono/topes. >> > >> * community of players (CoPl) >> > >> * reality (RC) or ontological >> > >> * imagined (IC) >> > >> >> > >> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a >>theme >> of >> > >> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a >> > >>chronotopic >> > >> theme. >> > >> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its >> > >> opposite. >> > >> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR >> SUMMON >> > >> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or >>are >> > >> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. >> > >>Chronotopes. >> > >> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar >> > >> opposites in your horizon of understanding. >> > >> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community >>of >> > >> players chronotopes. >> > >> >> > >> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a >> relation >> > >> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into >>polar >> > >> opposites. >> > >> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the >>notion of >> > >> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side >> > >> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing >>the >> > >>other >> > >> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. >> > >> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek >> > >> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking >> > >> Larry >> > >> >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> > >> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >> > >> Sent: 2016-03-01 12:41 AM >> > >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >> > >> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote >> learning >> > >> possibilities >> > >> >> > >> Dear Sue and Brian and all, >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my >>paper. >> I >> > >> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for >> > >>clarification >> > >> and also some more comments regarding what I think is a >>?paradigmatic >> > >> difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two >> > >>approaches >> > >> to education that I outlined in my paper. >> > >> >> > >> Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Ana >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> __________ >> > >> >> > >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis >>wrote: >> > >> >> > >> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for >> > >> educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana >> > >>Marjanovic-Shane?s >> > >> article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. >>Our >> > >> intention is to provide some of our shared professional >>understanding >> of >> > >> drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate >>some >> of >> > >> the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we >> look >> > >> forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as >> potential >> > >> overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. >> > >> >> > >> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field >>named >> > >> ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within >> > >>playworlds, >> > >> or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by >>Marjanovic-Shane. >> We >> > >> confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about >>and >> > >>from >> > >> which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama >> > >> described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational >>drama? >> > >>and >> > >> more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic >>inquiry, >> > >> among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen >>from >> > >>very >> > >> different communities in progressive school education, educational >> > >> psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently >> > >>discovered >> > >> the power of using drama in their practice. There have only >>recently >> > >>been >> > >> some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the >> book >> > >> ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257 >> > >>6 >> > >> 910/> which we published last year >> > >> >> > >> [The entire original message is not included.] >> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- >> *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* >> Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu) >> Associate Professor of Education >> Chestnut Hill College >> phone: 267-334-2905 >> From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Fri Mar 4 13:24:33 2016 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 08:24:33 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> Message-ID: <1B51C4B0-71FF-4F67-9F1F-BE3E6295E13E@monash.edu> Ooooh, guess what just arrived in my inbox! Sharing with those of you who have been following this thread: 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/eprint/3ZQfg4uJEFpc2BuVUqPD/full Cheers, Helen (wobbling a lot as I press send...) > On 4 Mar 2016, at 1:26 pm, Susan Davis wrote: > > Thank you Helen, > I appreciate your finding the time to post this as it is indeed that crazy > time of year with term starting. I find this DP approach conceivable and > doable in terms of teachers working within the constraints and > professional responsibilities now required in most schools/education > sites. Teachers as well as students have to work on terms and within > parameters that are not necessarily of their own making, but the point of > what you are saying is that through a dialogic process they can make these > situations more dialogic and perhaps more 'their own'. Finding the points > of connection and suitable animating ideas/actions is then often the key > for the teacher who wants to make this process meaningful for both > themselves and their students. > > I look forward to seeing your article once it?s published. > > Kind regards > Sue > > >> On 4/03/2016 9:16 am, "Helen Grimmett" wrote: >> >> Hi Ana, Sue and others >> >> Apologies for the delay in responding to your question about definitions >> of >> dialogue and dialogic pedagogy. I have been teaching and in meetings flat >> out for the past few days (hopefully dialogically!). >> >> I have an article about to be published in "Studying Teacher Education" in >> which I say: >> >> "Theoretically influenced by the work of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, Dewey and >> Friere, and variously referred to as Dialogic instruction (Nystrand, >> 1997), >> Dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999), Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; Lyle, >> 2008), Dialogic pedagogies (Edwards-Groves, Anstey, & Bull, 2014) etc., >> these approaches all share an understanding of learning as the active >> co-construction of meaning developed through joint activity and language >> interactions between and amongst teachers and learners. Knowledge is >> therefore not regarded as a fixed entity to be transmitted from teacher to >> learner, but a fluid negotiation, re-creation and expansion of cultural, >> collective and individual ideas, actions and meanings; and as such >> requires >> different pedagogic strategies to ?traditional? transmissive/monologic >> teaching." >> >> The article is a self-study of my own journey towards trying to teach in >> a >> more dialogical way. I have been strongly influenced by Bob Fecho's work >> and his position that we can really only hope to be 'more dialogical' in >> classrooms, as our professional responsibilities as teachers mean that we >> must be held accountable for ensuring that curricula aims are also met. >> This certainly doesn't mean that we can't encourage critique, debate and >> expansion of those aims, but we do have to remain cognisant of them and >> constantly work within the tension of institutional requirements and >> completely free-reign dialogue. >> >> We also have professional and moral responsibilities to ensure that we are >> creating an environment in which students feel 'safe to' be able to engage >> in such critique, debate and expansion as this inevitably exposes them to >> risks that they have not been expected to face in more traditional >> transmissive/monologic classrooms. It takes time to build trust, change >> expectations, engender confidence, develop skills etc so that our >> classrooms can become more dialogical in ways that expand understanding >> and >> transform social practices rather than denigrate into hurtful arguments >> and >> personal attacks. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but we all have a >> right to contribute and to have our contribution heard and considered >> respectfully. >> >> In my view, there is nothing wrong with a teacher contributing their own >> understanding (which may or may not come from a place of greater >> experience >> or knowledge) so long as the door (mind!) is always open to the >> possibility >> that their may be other ways to see, do or explain things. Not to do so >> would be an abdication of our professional responsibility. It is only a >> problem if the teacher's way is seen as the only way. However, helping >> students (and especially student teachers) to see that is really >> challenging...and continues to provide plenty of research interest for me. >> >> >> All I've got time for at the minute... >> Cheers, >> Helen >> >> >> >> -- >> *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 >> >> >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical >> Approach >> > -1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >> >> >> >> >> On 2 March 2016 at 18:08, Ana Marjanovic-Shane >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would also >>> love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as it >>> is >>> clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP >>> being used." >>> >>> Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of >>> dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think >>> that we >>> find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is dialogue >>> and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic >>> pedagogy? >>> >>> So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe Dialogic >>> pedagogy? >>> >>> Ana >>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis wrote: >>>> >>>> Brian, Helen, Larry, >>>> >>>> Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can imagine >>> how >>>> excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what >>>> adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes >>> and >>>> the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions. >>>> >>>> Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your >>> concept >>>> of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different >>>> interpretations and versions of DP being used. >>>> >>>> Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in >>> the >>>> playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers) >>> are >>>> being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than >>> they >>>> might in ?real life?. As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at >>> times >>>> in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is >>> committed >>>> and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess >>> you >>>> could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged >>> and >>>> committed way. >>>> >>>> Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play >>> and >>>> its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he >>>> discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance. In the >>>> text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which, >>> as >>>> Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child >>> weeps >>>> in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. >>> 11). >>>> This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the >>>> concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where >>>> learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding >>>> something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism >>> emerging in >>>> a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s >>>> real-world attitudes and beliefs). >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> Sue >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Larry >>>>> >>>>> I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we >>> imagine >>>>> over material reality so that the meaning of what we do >>> predominates. We >>>>> we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - >>> that?s >>>>> what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that >>>>> experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or >>> stepping >>>>> ?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being >>> captured >>>>> by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially >>> pretended >>>>> to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join >>> in - >>>>> they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little >>>>> intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some >>>>> ?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In >>> a >>>>> similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really >>> interested in >>>>> a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to >>> the >>>>> world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend >>> to >>>>> talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings >>> meaning >>>>> to the dialogue ? >>>>> >>>>> Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? >>>>> >>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian, >>>>>> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces >>> AT >>>>>> ONCE. This means simultaneously. >>>>>> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one >>>>>> time-space being over the other which also indicates the other >>>>>> time-space becomes under. >>>>>> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one >>> time-space >>>>>> or the other *at will*. >>>>>> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) >>> movement >>>>>> which is meaning making is always *at will*. >>>>>> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which >>>>>> contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. >>>>>> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur >>>>>> prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. >>>>>> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action >>> that >>>>>> occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding >>> discourse? >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." >>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM >>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >>>>>> dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote >>> learning >>>>>> possibilities >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Helen >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and >>>>>> then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) >>>>>> collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if >>> we >>>>>> were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s >>>>>> empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of >>>>>> us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re >>>>>> experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might >>> mean >>>>>> for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... >>>>>> >>>>>> I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 >>> year >>>>>> olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: >>> fabric, >>>>>> pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and >>> relationships >>>>>> we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in a >>>>>> shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to >>> pigs by >>>>>> Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to >>>>>> convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being >>>>>> killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with >>> Circe >>> ? >>>>>> and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the >>>>>> children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do >>> friends >>> do >>>>>> - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, >>> and >>>>>> we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all >>>>>> been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on >>> those >>>>>> tests ...) >>>>>> >>>>>> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a >>> lot, >>>>>> especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are >>> always >>> in >>>>>> two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other >>> at >>>>>> will - like what children do when they play without adults. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of >>> our >>>>>> actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the >>> acts >>>>>> and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others (or >>>>>> often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the >>>>>> potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the >>>>>> imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we >>> can >>>>>> move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two chronotopes >>> but >>>>>> can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events. >>>>>> While at the same time each person is always able to see through the >>>>>> perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like >>> for >>>>>> me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to >>> make >>>>>> new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... >>>>>> >>>>>> However, with me present and both playing along with the children >>> and >>>>>> stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about >>>>>> cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) >>> and >>>>>> what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no >>> one >>> is >>>>>> dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose >>> whether >>>>>> or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean >>> (e.g.Circe >>>>>> might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). >>>>>> >>>>>> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each >>> person >>>>>> chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone >>> can >>>>>> step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and >>>>>> those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality >>> happen >>>>>> together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the >>> sense >>>>>> that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had >>> been >>>>>> brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at >>> pictures in >>>>>> the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make >>> to >>>>>> find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another >>>>>> older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from >>>>>> versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children >>> how >>>>>> he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we >>> then >>>>>> embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger >>> boy >>>>>> snuck in to join his friends! >>>>>> >>>>>> This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in >>> ?!) >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call >>>>>> dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by >>>>>> Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and >>> Dramatic >>>>>> Approaches. >>>>>> >>>>>> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian Edmiston, PhD >>>>>> Professor of Drama in Education >>>>>> Department of Teaching and Learning >>>>>> Columbus, OH 43210 >>>>>> edmiston.1@osu.edu >>>>>> go.osu.edu/edmiston >>>>>> >>>>>> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to >>> heed, >>>>>> to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person >>>>>> participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, >>> lips, >>>>>> hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his >>>>>> entire self in discourse' >>>>>> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the >>> 'imagined >>>>>> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' >>> lesson or >>>>>> unit >>>>>> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for >>> children >>> to >>>>>> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, >>>>>> emotions >>>>>> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has >>> agreed >>>>>> that >>>>>> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and >>> back >>> to >>>>>> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE >>>>>> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone >>> steps >>>>>> out of >>>>>> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and >>> actions >>>>>> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be >>> revisited, >>>>>> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where >>>>>> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and >>>>>> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined >>>>>> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles >>> they >>>>>> are >>>>>> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole >>> point is >>>>>> that >>>>>> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step >>> out >>>>>> of >>>>>> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it >>> made >>> me >>>>>> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or >>> "I >>>>>> wonder >>>>>> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the >>>>>> session >>>>>> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE >>>>>> (done >>>>>> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the >>>>>> different >>>>>> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes >>> this >>>>>> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people >>> are >>>>>> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if >>> what >>>>>> they >>>>>> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current >>> events >>>>>> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school >>>>>> lockdown >>>>>> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much >>> emphasis on >>>>>> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being >>> mutually >>>>>> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this >>>>>> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing >>> students >>>>>> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', >>> and >>>>>> to >>>>>> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the >>>>>> lesson as >>>>>> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to >>>>>> develop >>>>>> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might >>>>>> potentially be. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Helen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>>>> Cultural-Historical >>>>>> Approach >>>>>> >>>>>> < >>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learnin >>>>>> g-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> >>>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane < >>> anamshane@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Larry, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the >>> ideas >>>>>> I >>>>>> started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right >>>>>> that I >>>>>> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts >>> in my >>>>>> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of >>> time, >>>>>> space >>>>>> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and >>> expectations >>>>>> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described >>>>>> chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of >>> temporal >>> and >>>>>> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . >>> [S]patial >>>>>> and >>>>>> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, >>> concrete >>>>>> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes >>> artistically >>>>>> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the >>>>>> movements of >>>>>> time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). >>>>>> >>>>>> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the >>> literary >>>>>> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - >>> we >>>>>> always >>>>>> ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they >>> are >>>>>> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes >>> relate >>> to >>>>>> each other in a different way - depending on a situation. >>>>>> >>>>>> You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds >>>>>> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in >>>>>> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - >>> in >>>>>> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these >>>>>> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is >>> that >>>>>> when >>>>>> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as >>>>>> ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is >>> hard, >>>>>> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate >>> (non-normative) >>> to >>>>>> ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the >>> imagined >>>>>> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that >>> the >>>>>> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a >>>>>> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their >>> participants to >>>>>> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. >>> In >>>>>> that >>>>>> sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the >>> reality >>>>>> as >>>>>> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic >>>>>> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to >>> draw >>>>>> the >>>>>> boundary between them. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world >>>>>> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ana, >>>>>> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing >>>>>> chrono/topes. >>>>>> * community of players (CoPl) >>>>>> * reality (RC) or ontological >>>>>> * imagined (IC) >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a >>> theme >>> of >>>>>> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a >>>>>> chronotopic >>>>>> theme. >>>>>> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its >>>>>> opposite. >>>>>> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR >>> SUMMON >>>>>> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or >>> are >>>>>> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. >>>>>> Chronotopes. >>>>>> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar >>>>>> opposites in your horizon of understanding. >>>>>> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community >>> of >>>>>> players chronotopes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a >>> relation >>>>>> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into >>> polar >>>>>> opposites. >>>>>> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the >>> notion of >>>>>> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side >>>>>> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing >>> the >>>>>> other >>>>>> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. >>>>>> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek >>>>>> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking >>>>>> Larry >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 12:41 AM >>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >>>>>> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote >>> learning >>>>>> possibilities >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Sue and Brian and all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my >>> paper. >>> I >>>>>> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for >>>>>> clarification >>>>>> and also some more comments regarding what I think is a >>> ?paradigmatic >>>>>> difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two >>>>>> approaches >>>>>> to education that I outlined in my paper. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> __________ >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for >>>>>> educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana >>>>>> Marjanovic-Shane?s >>>>>> article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. >>> Our >>>>>> intention is to provide some of our shared professional >>> understanding >>> of >>>>>> drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate >>> some >>> of >>>>>> the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we >>> look >>>>>> forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as >>> potential >>>>>> overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. >>>>>> >>>>>> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field >>> named >>>>>> ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within >>>>>> playworlds, >>>>>> or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by >>> Marjanovic-Shane. >>> We >>>>>> confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about >>> and >>>>>> from >>>>>> which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama >>>>>> described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational >>> drama? >>>>>> and >>>>>> more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic >>> inquiry, >>>>>> among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen >>> from >>>>>> very >>>>>> different communities in progressive school education, educational >>>>>> psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently >>>>>> discovered >>>>>> the power of using drama in their practice. There have only >>> recently >>>>>> been >>>>>> some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the >>> book >>>>>> ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < >>> >>> http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257 >>>>>> 6 >>>>>> 910/> which we published last year >>>>>> >>>>>> [The entire original message is not included.] >>>> >>>> -- >>> *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* >>> Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu) >>> Associate Professor of Education >>> Chestnut Hill College >>> phone: 267-334-2905 > > From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Fri Mar 4 13:44:40 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 21:44:40 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: <1B51C4B0-71FF-4F67-9F1F-BE3E6295E13E@monash.edu> References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> <1B51C4B0-71FF-4F67-9F1F-BE3E6295E13E@monash.edu> Message-ID: Congrats Helen, Some weekend reading :) A timely contribution to the discussion! Thanks for giving us access too (often an issue on weekends when at home)! Cheers Sue On 5/03/2016 7:24 am, "Helen Grimmett" wrote: >Ooooh, guess what just arrived in my inbox! Sharing with those of you who >have been following this thread: >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/eprint/3ZQfg4uJEFpc2BuVUqPD/full > >Cheers, >Helen (wobbling a lot as I press send...) > > >> On 4 Mar 2016, at 1:26 pm, Susan Davis wrote: >> >> Thank you Helen, >> I appreciate your finding the time to post this as it is indeed that >>crazy >> time of year with term starting. I find this DP approach conceivable and >> doable in terms of teachers working within the constraints and >> professional responsibilities now required in most schools/education >> sites. Teachers as well as students have to work on terms and within >> parameters that are not necessarily of their own making, but the point >>of >> what you are saying is that through a dialogic process they can make >>these >> situations more dialogic and perhaps more 'their own'. Finding the >>points >> of connection and suitable animating ideas/actions is then often the key >> for the teacher who wants to make this process meaningful for both >> themselves and their students. >> >> I look forward to seeing your article once it?s published. >> >> Kind regards >> Sue >> >> >>> On 4/03/2016 9:16 am, "Helen Grimmett" >>>wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ana, Sue and others >>> >>> Apologies for the delay in responding to your question about >>>definitions >>> of >>> dialogue and dialogic pedagogy. I have been teaching and in meetings >>>flat >>> out for the past few days (hopefully dialogically!). >>> >>> I have an article about to be published in "Studying Teacher >>>Education" in >>> which I say: >>> >>> "Theoretically influenced by the work of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, Dewey and >>> Friere, and variously referred to as Dialogic instruction (Nystrand, >>> 1997), >>> Dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999), Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; >>>Lyle, >>> 2008), Dialogic pedagogies (Edwards-Groves, Anstey, & Bull, 2014) etc., >>> these approaches all share an understanding of learning as the active >>> co-construction of meaning developed through joint activity and >>>language >>> interactions between and amongst teachers and learners. Knowledge is >>> therefore not regarded as a fixed entity to be transmitted from >>>teacher to >>> learner, but a fluid negotiation, re-creation and expansion of >>>cultural, >>> collective and individual ideas, actions and meanings; and as such >>> requires >>> different pedagogic strategies to ?traditional? transmissive/monologic >>> teaching." >>> >>> The article is a self-study of my own journey towards trying to teach >>>in >>> a >>> more dialogical way. I have been strongly influenced by Bob Fecho's >>>work >>> and his position that we can really only hope to be 'more dialogical' >>>in >>> classrooms, as our professional responsibilities as teachers mean that >>>we >>> must be held accountable for ensuring that curricula aims are also met. >>> This certainly doesn't mean that we can't encourage critique, debate >>>and >>> expansion of those aims, but we do have to remain cognisant of them >>>and >>> constantly work within the tension of institutional requirements and >>> completely free-reign dialogue. >>> >>> We also have professional and moral responsibilities to ensure that we >>>are >>> creating an environment in which students feel 'safe to' be able to >>>engage >>> in such critique, debate and expansion as this inevitably exposes them >>>to >>> risks that they have not been expected to face in more traditional >>> transmissive/monologic classrooms. It takes time to build trust, change >>> expectations, engender confidence, develop skills etc so that our >>> classrooms can become more dialogical in ways that expand understanding >>> and >>> transform social practices rather than denigrate into hurtful arguments >>> and >>> personal attacks. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but we all >>>have a >>> right to contribute and to have our contribution heard and considered >>> respectfully. >>> >>> In my view, there is nothing wrong with a teacher contributing their >>>own >>> understanding (which may or may not come from a place of greater >>> experience >>> or knowledge) so long as the door (mind!) is always open to the >>> possibility >>> that their may be other ways to see, do or explain things. Not to do so >>> would be an abdication of our professional responsibility. It is only a >>> problem if the teacher's way is seen as the only way. However, helping >>> students (and especially student teachers) to see that is really >>> challenging...and continues to provide plenty of research interest for >>>me. >>> >>> >>> All I've got time for at the minute... >>> Cheers, >>> Helen >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *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 >>> >>> >>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>Cultural-Historical >>> Approach >>> >>>>>ng >>> -1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> >>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2 March 2016 at 18:08, Ana Marjanovic-Shane >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would >>>>also >>>> love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as >>>>it >>>> is >>>> clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP >>>> being used." >>>> >>>> Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of >>>> dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think >>>> that we >>>> find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is >>>>dialogue >>>> and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic >>>> pedagogy? >>>> >>>> So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe >>>>Dialogic >>>> pedagogy? >>>> >>>> Ana >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Brian, Helen, Larry, >>>>> >>>>> Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can >>>>>imagine >>>> how >>>>> excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what >>>>> adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes >>>> and >>>>> the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions. >>>>> >>>>> Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your >>>> concept >>>>> of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different >>>>> interpretations and versions of DP being used. >>>>> >>>>> Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs >>>>>in >>>> the >>>>> playful moments, but what is important is that children (and >>>>>teachers) >>>> are >>>>> being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than >>>> they >>>>> might in ?real life?. As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at >>>> times >>>>> in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is >>>> committed >>>>> and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess >>>> you >>>>> could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged >>>> and >>>>> committed way. >>>>> >>>>> Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play >>>> and >>>>> its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he >>>>> discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance. In >>>>>the >>>>> text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which, >>>> as >>>>> Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child >>>> weeps >>>>> in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. >>>> 11). >>>>> This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the >>>>> concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where >>>>> learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. >>>>>Understanding >>>>> something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism >>>> emerging in >>>>> a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s >>>>> real-world attitudes and beliefs). >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards >>>>> Sue >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Larry >>>>>> >>>>>> I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we >>>> imagine >>>>>> over material reality so that the meaning of what we do >>>> predominates. We >>>>>> we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - >>>> that?s >>>>>> what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that >>>>>> experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or >>>> stepping >>>>>> ?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being >>>> captured >>>>>> by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially >>>> pretended >>>>>> to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join >>>> in - >>>>>> they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with >>>>>>little >>>>>> intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some >>>>>> ?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In >>>> a >>>>>> similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really >>>> interested in >>>>>> a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to >>>> the >>>>>> world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend >>>> to >>>>>> talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings >>>> meaning >>>>>> to the dialogue ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian, >>>>>>> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces >>>> AT >>>>>>> ONCE. This means simultaneously. >>>>>>> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one >>>>>>> time-space being over the other which also indicates the other >>>>>>> time-space becomes under. >>>>>>> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one >>>> time-space >>>>>>> or the other *at will*. >>>>>>> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) >>>> movement >>>>>>> which is meaning making is always *at will*. >>>>>>> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which >>>>>>> contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. >>>>>>> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur >>>>>>> prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. >>>>>>> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action >>>> that >>>>>>> occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding >>>> discourse? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." >>>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM >>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >>>>>>> dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote >>>> learning >>>>>>> possibilities >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, Helen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and >>>>>>> then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) >>>>>>> collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if >>>> we >>>>>>> were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s >>>>>>> empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of >>>>>>> us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re >>>>>>> experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might >>>> mean >>>>>>> for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 >>>> year >>>>>>> olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: >>>> fabric, >>>>>>> pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and >>>> relationships >>>>>>> we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in >>>>>>>a >>>>>>> shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to >>>> pigs by >>>>>>> Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to >>>>>>> convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being >>>>>>> killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with >>>> Circe >>>> ? >>>>>>> and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do >>>> friends >>>> do >>>>>>> - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, >>>> and >>>>>>> we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have >>>>>>>all >>>>>>> been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on >>>> those >>>>>>> tests ...) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a >>>> lot, >>>>>>> especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are >>>> always >>>> in >>>>>>> two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other >>>> at >>>>>>> will - like what children do when they play without adults. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of >>>> our >>>>>>> actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the >>>> acts >>>>>>> and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others >>>>>>>(or >>>>>>> often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the >>>>>>> potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the >>>>>>> imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we >>>> can >>>>>>> move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two >>>>>>>chronotopes >>>> but >>>>>>> can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on >>>>>>>events. >>>>>>> While at the same time each person is always able to see through >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like >>>> for >>>>>>> me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to >>>> make >>>>>>> new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, with me present and both playing along with the children >>>> and >>>>>>> stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about >>>>>>> cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the >>>>>>>group) >>>> and >>>>>>> what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no >>>> one >>>> is >>>>>>> dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose >>>> whether >>>>>>> or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean >>>> (e.g.Circe >>>>>>> might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each >>>> person >>>>>>> chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone >>>> can >>>>>>> step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced >>>>>>>and >>>>>>> those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality >>>> happen >>>>>>> together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the >>>> sense >>>>>>> that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had >>>> been >>>>>>> brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at >>>> pictures in >>>>>>> the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make >>>> to >>>>>>> find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another >>>>>>> older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from >>>>>>> versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children >>>> how >>>>>>> he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we >>>> then >>>>>>> embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger >>>> boy >>>>>>> snuck in to join his friends! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in >>>> ?!) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call >>>>>>> dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by >>>>>>> Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and >>>> Dramatic >>>>>>> Approaches. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian Edmiston, PhD >>>>>>> Professor of Drama in Education >>>>>>> Department of Teaching and Learning >>>>>>> Columbus, OH 43210 >>>>>>> edmiston.1@osu.edu >>>>>>> go.osu.edu/edmiston >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to >>>> heed, >>>>>>> to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person >>>>>>> participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, >>>> lips, >>>>>>> hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his >>>>>>> entire self in discourse' >>>>>>> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the >>>> 'imagined >>>>>>> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' >>>> lesson or >>>>>>> unit >>>>>>> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for >>>> children >>>> to >>>>>>> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, >>>>>>> emotions >>>>>>> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has >>>> agreed >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and >>>> back >>>> to >>>>>>> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE >>>>>>> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone >>>> steps >>>>>>> out of >>>>>>> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and >>>> actions >>>>>>> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be >>>> revisited, >>>>>>> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where >>>>>>> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and >>>>>>> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined >>>>>>> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles >>>> they >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole >>>> point is >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step >>>> out >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it >>>> made >>>> me >>>>>>> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or >>>> "I >>>>>>> wonder >>>>>>> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the >>>>>>> session >>>>>>> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE >>>>>>> (done >>>>>>> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the >>>>>>> different >>>>>>> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes >>>> this >>>>>>> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people >>>> are >>>>>>> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if >>>> what >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current >>>> events >>>>>>> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school >>>>>>> lockdown >>>>>>> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much >>>> emphasis on >>>>>>> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being >>>> mutually >>>>>>> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this >>>>>>> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing >>>> students >>>>>>> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', >>>> and >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the >>>>>>> lesson as >>>>>>> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to >>>>>>> develop >>>>>>> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might >>>>>>> potentially be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Helen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> *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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>>>>> Cultural-Historical >>>>>>> Approach >>>>>>> >>>>>>> < >>>> >>>>https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learni >>>>n >>>>>>> g-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> >>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane < >>>> anamshane@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Larry, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the >>>> ideas >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right >>>>>>> that I >>>>>>> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts >>>> in my >>>>>>> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of >>>> time, >>>>>>> space >>>>>>> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and >>>> expectations >>>>>>> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described >>>>>>> chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of >>>> temporal >>>> and >>>>>>> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . >>>> [S]patial >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, >>>> concrete >>>>>>> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes >>>> artistically >>>>>>> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the >>>>>>> movements of >>>>>>> time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the >>>> literary >>>>>>> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - >>>> we >>>>>>> always >>>>>>> ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they >>>> are >>>>>>> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes >>>> relate >>>> to >>>>>>> each other in a different way - depending on a situation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds >>>>>>> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in >>>>>>> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - >>>> in >>>>>>> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these >>>>>>> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is >>>> that >>>>>>> when >>>>>>> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as >>>>>>> ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is >>>> hard, >>>>>>> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate >>>> (non-normative) >>>> to >>>>>>> ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the >>>> imagined >>>>>>> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that >>>> the >>>>>>> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a >>>>>>> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their >>>> participants to >>>>>>> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. >>>> In >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the >>>> reality >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic >>>>>>> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to >>>> draw >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> boundary between them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world >>>>>>> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ana, >>>>>>> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing >>>>>>> chrono/topes. >>>>>>> * community of players (CoPl) >>>>>>> * reality (RC) or ontological >>>>>>> * imagined (IC) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a >>>> theme >>>> of >>>>>>> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a >>>>>>> chronotopic >>>>>>> theme. >>>>>>> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its >>>>>>> opposite. >>>>>>> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR >>>> SUMMON >>>>>>> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or >>>> are >>>>>>> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. >>>>>>> Chronotopes. >>>>>>> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar >>>>>>> opposites in your horizon of understanding. >>>>>>> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community >>>> of >>>>>>> players chronotopes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a >>>> relation >>>>>>> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into >>>> polar >>>>>>> opposites. >>>>>>> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the >>>> notion of >>>>>>> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side >>>>>>> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing >>>> the >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. >>>>>>> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek >>>>>>> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking >>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >>>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 12:41 AM >>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >>>>>>> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote >>>> learning >>>>>>> possibilities >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Sue and Brian and all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my >>>> paper. >>>> I >>>>>>> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for >>>>>>> clarification >>>>>>> and also some more comments regarding what I think is a >>>> ?paradigmatic >>>>>>> difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two >>>>>>> approaches >>>>>>> to education that I outlined in my paper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> __________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for >>>>>>> educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana >>>>>>> Marjanovic-Shane?s >>>>>>> article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. >>>> Our >>>>>>> intention is to provide some of our shared professional >>>> understanding >>>> of >>>>>>> drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate >>>> some >>>> of >>>>>>> the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we >>>> look >>>>>>> forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as >>>> potential >>>>>>> overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field >>>> named >>>>>>> ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within >>>>>>> playworlds, >>>>>>> or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by >>>> Marjanovic-Shane. >>>> We >>>>>>> confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about >>>> and >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama >>>>>>> described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational >>>> drama? >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic >>>> inquiry, >>>>>>> among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen >>>> from >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> different communities in progressive school education, educational >>>>>>> psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently >>>>>>> discovered >>>>>>> the power of using drama in their practice. There have only >>>> recently >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the >>>> book >>>>>>> ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < >>>> >>>> >>>>http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-9781472 >>>>57 >>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>> 910/> which we published last year >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [The entire original message is not included.] >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* >>>> Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu) >>>> Associate Professor of Education >>>> Chestnut Hill College >>>> phone: 267-334-2905 >> >> From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Mar 4 16:18:24 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:18:24 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities In-Reply-To: References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> <1B51C4B0-71FF-4F67-9F1F-BE3E6295E13E@monash.edu> Message-ID: <56da25dd.9a48620a.95a65.221c@mx.google.com> Helen, Thank you for this wonderful article which will open a place for further inquiry. I want to highlight what I see as central ways of you focusing on an existential approach to *ways of being* a self that congruently combines both *understanding* teaching/learning AND. *practising* teaching/learning through developing a particular kind of *self* ( the dialogic self) The way of developing this hybrid self is through combining the James/Mead/Pierce *self* notion with the Buber/Bahktin *dialogue* notion to arrive at this particular existential way of understanding/practicing a hybrid self being/becoming. The focus now shifts in the development of a pro/found awareness that the *between* of THIS self (between the two concepts of self and dialogue) is *interiorized* into the *within* that is no longer *within the person but now is a *within* the dialogical self. Just as central to this focus is *reversibly* the *within* now becomes *exteriorized* into the *between*. Society from this side is not *surrounding* the self AS an external *determinant*. In this way of existentially being there is a *society-of-selves* The con/sequences of this shift in focus is that *developments* in the self AUTOMATICALLY imply development in society at large. The reverse is also *true*. The approach taken to develop this dialogical self focuses on examining HOW *undertaking* intensely CONTEMPLATIVE and reflective and theoretical work (archival work) is a developmental process THROUGH poetic application and inquiry OF Dialogical Self Theory. Helen I am echoing or ventriloquizing your speaking *voice* as a way of honoring and wanting to extend your existential approach as a way of being in the *within* world. This is a method of embodying, and endowing, and re-enchanting the world. In Merleau-Ponty's approach we are *singing* the world AS transforming the between to become the *within* The dialogical self as an emerging *image* of self. The theme of the three types of chronotopes in Ana's work reappears: Imaginal chronotope Real or ontological chronotope Community of self's chronotope All existing *within* as interiorized AND existing *between* as exteriorized. Re-enchanting being/becoming Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Susan Davis" Sent: ?2016-?03-?04 1:46 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities Congrats Helen, Some weekend reading :) A timely contribution to the discussion! Thanks for giving us access too (often an issue on weekends when at home)! Cheers Sue On 5/03/2016 7:24 am, "Helen Grimmett" wrote: >Ooooh, guess what just arrived in my inbox! Sharing with those of you who >have been following this thread: >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/eprint/3ZQfg4uJEFpc2BuVUqPD/full > >Cheers, >Helen (wobbling a lot as I press send...) > > >> On 4 Mar 2016, at 1:26 pm, Susan Davis wrote: >> >> Thank you Helen, >> I appreciate your finding the time to post this as it is indeed that >>crazy >> time of year with term starting. I find this DP approach conceivable and >> doable in terms of teachers working within the constraints and >> professional responsibilities now required in most schools/education >> sites. Teachers as well as students have to work on terms and within >> parameters that are not necessarily of their own making, but the point >>of >> what you are saying is that through a dialogic process they can make >>these >> situations more dialogic and perhaps more 'their own'. Finding the >>points >> of connection and suitable animating ideas/actions is then often the key >> for the teacher who wants to make this process meaningful for both >> themselves and their students. >> >> I look forward to seeing your article once it?s published. >> >> Kind regards >> Sue >> >> >>> On 4/03/2016 9:16 am, "Helen Grimmett" >>>wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ana, Sue and others >>> >>> Apologies for the delay in responding to your question about >>>definitions >>> of >>> dialogue and dialogic pedagogy. I have been teaching and in meetings >>>flat >>> out for the past few days (hopefully dialogically!). >>> >>> I have an article about to be published in "Studying Teacher >>>Education" in >>> which I say: >>> >>> "Theoretically influenced by the work of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, Dewey and >>> Friere, and variously referred to as Dialogic instruction (Nystrand, >>> 1997), >>> Dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999), Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; >>>Lyle, >>> 2008), Dialogic pedagogies (Edwards-Groves, Anstey, & Bull, 2014) etc., >>> these approaches all share an understanding of learning as the active >>> co-construction of meaning developed through joint activity and >>>language >>> interactions between and amongst teachers and learners. Knowledge is >>> therefore not regarded as a fixed entity to be transmitted from >>>teacher to >>> learner, but a fluid negotiation, re-creation and expansion of >>>cultural, >>> collective and individual ideas, actions and meanings; and as such >>> requires >>> different pedagogic strategies to ?traditional? transmissive/monologic >>> teaching." >>> >>> The article is a self-study of my own journey towards trying to teach >>>in >>> a >>> more dialogical way. I have been strongly influenced by Bob Fecho's >>>work >>> and his position that we can really only hope to be 'more dialogical' >>>in >>> classrooms, as our professional responsibilities as teachers mean that >>>we >>> must be held accountable for ensuring that curricula aims are also met. >>> This certainly doesn't mean that we can't encourage critique, debate >>>and >>> expansion of those aims, but we do have to remain cognisant of them >>>and >>> constantly work within the tension of institutional requirements and >>> completely free-reign dialogue. >>> >>> We also have professional and moral responsibilities to ensure that we >>>are >>> creating an environment in which students feel 'safe to' be able to >>>engage >>> in such critique, debate and expansion as this inevitably exposes them >>>to >>> risks that they have not been expected to face in more traditional >>> transmissive/monologic classrooms. It takes time to build trust, change >>> expectations, engender confidence, develop skills etc so that our >>> classrooms can become more dialogical in ways that expand understanding >>> and >>> transform social practices rather than denigrate into hurtful arguments >>> and >>> personal attacks. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but we all >>>have a >>> right to contribute and to have our contribution heard and considered >>> respectfully. >>> >>> In my view, there is nothing wrong with a teacher contributing their >>>own >>> understanding (which may or may not come from a place of greater >>> experience >>> or knowledge) so long as the door (mind!) is always open to the >>> possibility >>> that their may be other ways to see, do or explain things. Not to do so >>> would be an abdication of our professional responsibility. It is only a >>> problem if the teacher's way is seen as the only way. However, helping >>> students (and especially student teachers) to see that is really >>> challenging...and continues to provide plenty of research interest for >>>me. >>> >>> >>> All I've got time for at the minute... >>> Cheers, >>> Helen >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *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 >>> >>> >>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>Cultural-Historical >>> Approach >>> >>>>>ng >>> -1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> >>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2 March 2016 at 18:08, Ana Marjanovic-Shane >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would >>>>also >>>> love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as >>>>it >>>> is >>>> clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP >>>> being used." >>>> >>>> Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of >>>> dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think >>>> that we >>>> find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is >>>>dialogue >>>> and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic >>>> pedagogy? >>>> >>>> So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe >>>>Dialogic >>>> pedagogy? >>>> >>>> Ana >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Brian, Helen, Larry, >>>>> >>>>> Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can >>>>>imagine >>>> how >>>>> excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what >>>>> adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes >>>> and >>>>> the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions. >>>>> >>>>> Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your >>>> concept >>>>> of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different >>>>> interpretations and versions of DP being used. >>>>> >>>>> Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs >>>>>in >>>> the >>>>> playful moments, but what is important is that children (and >>>>>teachers) >>>> are >>>>> being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than >>>> they >>>>> might in ?real life?. As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at >>>> times >>>>> in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is >>>> committed >>>>> and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess >>>> you >>>>> could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged >>>> and >>>>> committed way. >>>>> >>>>> Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play >>>> and >>>>> its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he >>>>> discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance. In >>>>>the >>>>> text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which, >>>> as >>>>> Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child >>>> weeps >>>>> in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. >>>> 11). >>>>> This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the >>>>> concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where >>>>> learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. >>>>>Understanding >>>>> something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism >>>> emerging in >>>>> a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s >>>>> real-world attitudes and beliefs). >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards >>>>> Sue >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Larry >>>>>> >>>>>> I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we >>>> imagine >>>>>> over material reality so that the meaning of what we do >>>> predominates. We >>>>>> we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - >>>> that?s >>>>>> what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that >>>>>> experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or >>>> stepping >>>>>> ?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being >>>> captured >>>>>> by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially >>>> pretended >>>>>> to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join >>>> in - >>>>>> they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with >>>>>>little >>>>>> intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some >>>>>> ?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In >>>> a >>>>>> similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really >>>> interested in >>>>>> a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to >>>> the >>>>>> world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend >>>> to >>>>>> talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings >>>> meaning >>>>>> to the dialogue ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian, >>>>>>> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces >>>> AT >>>>>>> ONCE. This means simultaneously. >>>>>>> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one >>>>>>> time-space being over the other which also indicates the other >>>>>>> time-space becomes under. >>>>>>> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one >>>> time-space >>>>>>> or the other *at will*. >>>>>>> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) >>>> movement >>>>>>> which is meaning making is always *at will*. >>>>>>> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which >>>>>>> contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. >>>>>>> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur >>>>>>> prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. >>>>>>> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action >>>> that >>>>>>> occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding >>>> discourse? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." >>>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM >>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >>>>>>> dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote >>>> learning >>>>>>> possibilities >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, Helen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and >>>>>>> then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) >>>>>>> collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if >>>> we >>>>>>> were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s >>>>>>> empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of >>>>>>> us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re >>>>>>> experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might >>>> mean >>>>>>> for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 >>>> year >>>>>>> olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: >>>> fabric, >>>>>>> pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and >>>> relationships >>>>>>> we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in >>>>>>>a >>>>>>> shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to >>>> pigs by >>>>>>> Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to >>>>>>> convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being >>>>>>> killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with >>>> Circe >>>> ? >>>>>>> and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do >>>> friends >>>> do >>>>>>> - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, >>>> and >>>>>>> we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have >>>>>>>all >>>>>>> been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on >>>> those >>>>>>> tests ...) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a >>>> lot, >>>>>>> especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are >>>> always >>>> in >>>>>>> two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other >>>> at >>>>>>> will - like what children do when they play without adults. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of >>>> our >>>>>>> actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the >>>> acts >>>>>>> and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others >>>>>>>(or >>>>>>> often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the >>>>>>> potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the >>>>>>> imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we >>>> can >>>>>>> move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two >>>>>>>chronotopes >>>> but >>>>>>> can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on >>>>>>>events. >>>>>>> While at the same time each person is always able to see through >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like >>>> for >>>>>>> me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to >>>> make >>>>>>> new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, with me present and both playing along with the children >>>> and >>>>>>> stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about >>>>>>> cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the >>>>>>>group) >>>> and >>>>>>> what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no >>>> one >>>> is >>>>>>> dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose >>>> whether >>>>>>> or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean >>>> (e.g.Circe >>>>>>> might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each >>>> person >>>>>>> chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone >>>> can >>>>>>> step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced >>>>>>>and >>>>>>> those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality >>>> happen >>>>>>> together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the >>>> sense >>>>>>> that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had >>>> been >>>>>>> brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at >>>> pictures in >>>>>>> the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make >>>> to >>>>>>> find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another >>>>>>> older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from >>>>>>> versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children >>>> how >>>>>>> he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we >>>> then >>>>>>> embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger >>>> boy >>>>>>> snuck in to join his friends! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in >>>> ?!) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call >>>>>>> dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by >>>>>>> Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and >>>> Dramatic >>>>>>> Approaches. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian Edmiston, PhD >>>>>>> Professor of Drama in Education >>>>>>> Department of Teaching and Learning >>>>>>> Columbus, OH 43210 >>>>>>> edmiston.1@osu.edu >>>>>>> go.osu.edu/edmiston >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to >>>> heed, >>>>>>> to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person >>>>>>> participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, >>>> lips, >>>>>>> hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his >>>>>>> entire self in discourse' >>>>>>> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the >>>> 'imagined >>>>>>> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' >>>> lesson or >>>>>>> unit >>>>>>> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for >>>> children >>>> to >>>>>>> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, >>>>>>> emotions >>>>>>> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has >>>> agreed >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and >>>> back >>>> to >>>>>>> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE >>>>>>> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone >>>> steps >>>>>>> out of >>>>>>> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and >>>> actions >>>>>>> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be >>>> revisited, >>>>>>> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where >>>>>>> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and >>>>>>> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined >>>>>>> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles >>>> they >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole >>>> point is >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step >>>> out >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it >>>> made >>>> me >>>>>>> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or >>>> "I >>>>>>> wonder >>>>>>> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the >>>>>>> session >>>>>>> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE >>>>>>> (done >>>>>>> [The entire original message is not included.] From avisr@netspace.net.au Fri Mar 4 16:47:56 2016 From: avisr@netspace.net.au (Avis Ridgway) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 11:47:56 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning possibilities In-Reply-To: <1B51C4B0-71FF-4F67-9F1F-BE3E6295E13E@monash.edu> References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> <1B51C4B0-71FF-4F67-9F1F-BE3E6295E13E@monash.edu> Message-ID: <1C5C2C72-8FA0-4EF6-88AD-E4EA1FCA874A@netspace.net.au> Congrats Helen, We'll be able to quote you!! Cheers Avis On 05/03/2016, at 8:24 AM, Helen Grimmett wrote: > Ooooh, guess what just arrived in my inbox! Sharing with those of you who have been following this thread: > 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/eprint/3ZQfg4uJEFpc2BuVUqPD/full > > Cheers, > Helen (wobbling a lot as I press send...) > > >> On 4 Mar 2016, at 1:26 pm, Susan Davis wrote: >> >> Thank you Helen, >> I appreciate your finding the time to post this as it is indeed that crazy >> time of year with term starting. I find this DP approach conceivable and >> doable in terms of teachers working within the constraints and >> professional responsibilities now required in most schools/education >> sites. Teachers as well as students have to work on terms and within >> parameters that are not necessarily of their own making, but the point of >> what you are saying is that through a dialogic process they can make these >> situations more dialogic and perhaps more 'their own'. Finding the points >> of connection and suitable animating ideas/actions is then often the key >> for the teacher who wants to make this process meaningful for both >> themselves and their students. >> >> I look forward to seeing your article once it?s published. >> >> Kind regards >> Sue >> >> >>> On 4/03/2016 9:16 am, "Helen Grimmett" wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ana, Sue and others >>> >>> Apologies for the delay in responding to your question about definitions >>> of >>> dialogue and dialogic pedagogy. I have been teaching and in meetings flat >>> out for the past few days (hopefully dialogically!). >>> >>> I have an article about to be published in "Studying Teacher Education" in >>> which I say: >>> >>> "Theoretically influenced by the work of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, Dewey and >>> Friere, and variously referred to as Dialogic instruction (Nystrand, >>> 1997), >>> Dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999), Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; Lyle, >>> 2008), Dialogic pedagogies (Edwards-Groves, Anstey, & Bull, 2014) etc., >>> these approaches all share an understanding of learning as the active >>> co-construction of meaning developed through joint activity and language >>> interactions between and amongst teachers and learners. Knowledge is >>> therefore not regarded as a fixed entity to be transmitted from teacher to >>> learner, but a fluid negotiation, re-creation and expansion of cultural, >>> collective and individual ideas, actions and meanings; and as such >>> requires >>> different pedagogic strategies to ?traditional? transmissive/monologic >>> teaching." >>> >>> The article is a self-study of my own journey towards trying to teach in >>> a >>> more dialogical way. I have been strongly influenced by Bob Fecho's work >>> and his position that we can really only hope to be 'more dialogical' in >>> classrooms, as our professional responsibilities as teachers mean that we >>> must be held accountable for ensuring that curricula aims are also met. >>> This certainly doesn't mean that we can't encourage critique, debate and >>> expansion of those aims, but we do have to remain cognisant of them and >>> constantly work within the tension of institutional requirements and >>> completely free-reign dialogue. >>> >>> We also have professional and moral responsibilities to ensure that we are >>> creating an environment in which students feel 'safe to' be able to engage >>> in such critique, debate and expansion as this inevitably exposes them to >>> risks that they have not been expected to face in more traditional >>> transmissive/monologic classrooms. It takes time to build trust, change >>> expectations, engender confidence, develop skills etc so that our >>> classrooms can become more dialogical in ways that expand understanding >>> and >>> transform social practices rather than denigrate into hurtful arguments >>> and >>> personal attacks. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but we all have a >>> right to contribute and to have our contribution heard and considered >>> respectfully. >>> >>> In my view, there is nothing wrong with a teacher contributing their own >>> understanding (which may or may not come from a place of greater >>> experience >>> or knowledge) so long as the door (mind!) is always open to the >>> possibility >>> that their may be other ways to see, do or explain things. Not to do so >>> would be an abdication of our professional responsibility. It is only a >>> problem if the teacher's way is seen as the only way. However, helping >>> students (and especially student teachers) to see that is really >>> challenging...and continues to provide plenty of research interest for me. >>> >>> >>> All I've got time for at the minute... >>> Cheers, >>> Helen >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *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 >>> >>> >>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical >>> Approach >>> >> -1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> >>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2 March 2016 at 18:08, Ana Marjanovic-Shane >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would also >>>> love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as it >>>> is >>>> clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP >>>> being used." >>>> >>>> Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of >>>> dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think >>>> that we >>>> find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is dialogue >>>> and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic >>>> pedagogy? >>>> >>>> So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe Dialogic >>>> pedagogy? >>>> >>>> Ana >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Brian, Helen, Larry, >>>>> >>>>> Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can imagine >>>> how >>>>> excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what >>>>> adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes >>>> and >>>>> the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions. >>>>> >>>>> Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your >>>> concept >>>>> of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different >>>>> interpretations and versions of DP being used. >>>>> >>>>> Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in >>>> the >>>>> playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers) >>>> are >>>>> being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than >>>> they >>>>> might in ?real life?. As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at >>>> times >>>>> in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is >>>> committed >>>>> and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess >>>> you >>>>> could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged >>>> and >>>>> committed way. >>>>> >>>>> Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play >>>> and >>>>> its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he >>>>> discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance. In the >>>>> text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which, >>>> as >>>>> Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child >>>> weeps >>>>> in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. >>>> 11). >>>>> This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the >>>>> concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where >>>>> learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding >>>>> something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism >>>> emerging in >>>>> a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s >>>>> real-world attitudes and beliefs). >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards >>>>> Sue >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Larry >>>>>> >>>>>> I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we >>>> imagine >>>>>> over material reality so that the meaning of what we do >>>> predominates. We >>>>>> we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - >>>> that?s >>>>>> what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that >>>>>> experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or >>>> stepping >>>>>> ?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being >>>> captured >>>>>> by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially >>>> pretended >>>>>> to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join >>>> in - >>>>>> they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little >>>>>> intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some >>>>>> ?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In >>>> a >>>>>> similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really >>>> interested in >>>>>> a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to >>>> the >>>>>> world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend >>>> to >>>>>> talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings >>>> meaning >>>>>> to the dialogue ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian, >>>>>>> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces >>>> AT >>>>>>> ONCE. This means simultaneously. >>>>>>> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one >>>>>>> time-space being over the other which also indicates the other >>>>>>> time-space becomes under. >>>>>>> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one >>>> time-space >>>>>>> or the other *at will*. >>>>>>> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) >>>> movement >>>>>>> which is meaning making is always *at will*. >>>>>>> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which >>>>>>> contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. >>>>>>> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur >>>>>>> prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. >>>>>>> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action >>>> that >>>>>>> occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding >>>> discourse? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." >>>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM >>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >>>>>>> dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote >>>> learning >>>>>>> possibilities >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, Helen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and >>>>>>> then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) >>>>>>> collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if >>>> we >>>>>>> were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s >>>>>>> empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of >>>>>>> us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re >>>>>>> experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might >>>> mean >>>>>>> for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 >>>> year >>>>>>> olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: >>>> fabric, >>>>>>> pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and >>>> relationships >>>>>>> we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in a >>>>>>> shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to >>>> pigs by >>>>>>> Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to >>>>>>> convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being >>>>>>> killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with >>>> Circe >>>> ? >>>>>>> and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the >>>>>>> children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do >>>> friends >>>> do >>>>>>> - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, >>>> and >>>>>>> we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all >>>>>>> been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on >>>> those >>>>>>> tests ...) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a >>>> lot, >>>>>>> especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are >>>> always >>>> in >>>>>>> two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other >>>> at >>>>>>> will - like what children do when they play without adults. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of >>>> our >>>>>>> actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the >>>> acts >>>>>>> and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others (or >>>>>>> often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the >>>>>>> potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the >>>>>>> imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we >>>> can >>>>>>> move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two chronotopes >>>> but >>>>>>> can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events. >>>>>>> While at the same time each person is always able to see through the >>>>>>> perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like >>>> for >>>>>>> me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to >>>> make >>>>>>> new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, with me present and both playing along with the children >>>> and >>>>>>> stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about >>>>>>> cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) >>>> and >>>>>>> what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no >>>> one >>>> is >>>>>>> dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose >>>> whether >>>>>>> or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean >>>> (e.g.Circe >>>>>>> might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each >>>> person >>>>>>> chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone >>>> can >>>>>>> step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and >>>>>>> those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality >>>> happen >>>>>>> together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the >>>> sense >>>>>>> that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had >>>> been >>>>>>> brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at >>>> pictures in >>>>>>> the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make >>>> to >>>>>>> find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another >>>>>>> older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from >>>>>>> versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children >>>> how >>>>>>> he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we >>>> then >>>>>>> embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger >>>> boy >>>>>>> snuck in to join his friends! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in >>>> ?!) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call >>>>>>> dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by >>>>>>> Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and >>>> Dramatic >>>>>>> Approaches. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian Edmiston, PhD >>>>>>> Professor of Drama in Education >>>>>>> Department of Teaching and Learning >>>>>>> Columbus, OH 43210 >>>>>>> edmiston.1@osu.edu >>>>>>> go.osu.edu/edmiston >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to >>>> heed, >>>>>>> to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person >>>>>>> participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, >>>> lips, >>>>>>> hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his >>>>>>> entire self in discourse' >>>>>>> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the >>>> 'imagined >>>>>>> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' >>>> lesson or >>>>>>> unit >>>>>>> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for >>>> children >>>> to >>>>>>> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, >>>>>>> emotions >>>>>>> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has >>>> agreed >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and >>>> back >>>> to >>>>>>> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE >>>>>>> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone >>>> steps >>>>>>> out of >>>>>>> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and >>>> actions >>>>>>> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be >>>> revisited, >>>>>>> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where >>>>>>> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and >>>>>>> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined >>>>>>> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles >>>> they >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole >>>> point is >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step >>>> out >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it >>>> made >>>> me >>>>>>> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or >>>> "I >>>>>>> wonder >>>>>>> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the >>>>>>> session >>>>>>> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE >>>>>>> (done >>>>>>> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the >>>>>>> different >>>>>>> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes >>>> this >>>>>>> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people >>>> are >>>>>>> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if >>>> what >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current >>>> events >>>>>>> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school >>>>>>> lockdown >>>>>>> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much >>>> emphasis on >>>>>>> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being >>>> mutually >>>>>>> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this >>>>>>> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing >>>> students >>>>>>> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', >>>> and >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the >>>>>>> lesson as >>>>>>> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to >>>>>>> develop >>>>>>> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might >>>>>>> potentially be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Helen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> *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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>>>>> Cultural-Historical >>>>>>> Approach >>>>>>> >>>>>>> < >>>> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learnin >>>>>>> g-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> >>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane < >>>> anamshane@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Larry, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the >>>> ideas >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> started to develop in the ?Spoilsport? article. Yes, you are right >>>>>>> that I >>>>>>> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts >>>> in my >>>>>>> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of >>>> time, >>>>>>> space >>>>>>> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and >>>> expectations >>>>>>> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described >>>>>>> chronotope in literature as ?the intrinsic connectedness of >>>> temporal >>>> and >>>>>>> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . >>>> [S]patial >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, >>>> concrete >>>>>>> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes >>>> artistically >>>>>>> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the >>>>>>> movements of >>>>>>> time, plot and history? (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the >>>> literary >>>>>>> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - >>>> we >>>>>>> always >>>>>>> ?operate? on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they >>>> are >>>>>>> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes >>>> relate >>>> to >>>>>>> each other in a different way - depending on a situation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You invoke the concept of being ?captured? by the imagined worlds >>>>>>> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in >>>>>>> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - >>>> in >>>>>>> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these >>>>>>> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is >>>> that >>>>>>> when >>>>>>> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ?dwelling? it is as >>>>>>> ?captivating? as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is >>>> hard, >>>>>>> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate >>>> (non-normative) >>>> to >>>>>>> ?spoil? this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the >>>> imagined >>>>>>> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that >>>> the >>>>>>> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a >>>>>>> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their >>>> participants to >>>>>>> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others? perspectives. >>>> In >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> sense I don?t see the relationship between the imagined and the >>>> reality >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic >>>>>>> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to >>>> draw >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> boundary between them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ?Adamic? world >>>>>>> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ana, >>>>>>> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing >>>>>>> chrono/topes. >>>>>>> * community of players (CoPl) >>>>>>> * reality (RC) or ontological >>>>>>> * imagined (IC) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a >>>> theme >>>> of >>>>>>> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a >>>>>>> chronotopic >>>>>>> theme. >>>>>>> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its >>>>>>> opposite. >>>>>>> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR >>>> SUMMON >>>>>>> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or >>>> are >>>>>>> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of. >>>>>>> Chronotopes. >>>>>>> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar >>>>>>> opposites in your horizon of understanding. >>>>>>> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community >>>> of >>>>>>> players chronotopes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a >>>> relation >>>>>>> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into >>>> polar >>>>>>> opposites. >>>>>>> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the >>>> notion of >>>>>>> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side >>>>>>> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing >>>> the >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*. >>>>>>> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek >>>>>>> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking >>>>>>> Larry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" >>>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 12:41 AM >>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >>>>>>> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote >>>> learning >>>>>>> possibilities >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Sue and Brian and all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First ? thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my >>>> paper. >>>> I >>>>>>> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for >>>>>>> clarification >>>>>>> and also some more comments regarding what I think is a >>>> ?paradigmatic >>>>>>> difference? ? rather than an arbitrary dichotomy between the two >>>>>>> approaches >>>>>>> to education that I outlined in my paper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please see my responses below, between your words - in blue! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> __________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Susan Davis >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As scholars and practitioners committed to the use of drama for >>>>>>> educational purposes we wish to respond briefly to Ana >>>>>>> Marjanovic-Shane?s >>>>>>> article: ?Spoilsport? in drama in education vs. dialogic pedagogy. >>>> Our >>>>>>> intention is to provide some of our shared professional >>>> understanding >>>> of >>>>>>> drama?s use in educational contexts that we hope will illuminate >>>> some >>>> of >>>>>>> the misunderstandings we find in this article. At the same time, we >>>> look >>>>>>> forward to future productive dialogue about what we regard as >>>> potential >>>>>>> overlaps between these pedagogical approaches. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We need to stress from the start that there is no unified field >>>> named >>>>>>> ?drama in education? that would extend to those who work within >>>>>>> playworlds, >>>>>>> or practice psychodrama and so forth as claimed by >>>> Marjanovic-Shane. >>>> We >>>>>>> confine our remarks to the field that we are knowledgeable about >>>> and >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> which Marjanovic-Shane draws her example: a classroom use of drama >>>>>>> described by Heathcote as ?drama in education? or ?educational >>>> drama? >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> more recently as process drama, applied theatre, and dramatic >>>> inquiry, >>>>>>> among other terms. In fact these fields of practice have arisen >>>> from >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> different communities in progressive school education, educational >>>>>>> psychology, early childhood, and play all of whom independently >>>>>>> discovered >>>>>>> the power of using drama in their practice. There have only >>>> recently >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> some nascent interactions between these groups (see for example the >>>> book >>>>>>> ?Dramatic Interactions in Education? < >>>> >>>> http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/dramatic-interactions-in-education-978147257 >>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>> 910/> which we published last year >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [The entire original message is not included.] >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* >>>> Dialogic Pedagogy Journal editor (dpj.pitt.edu) >>>> Associate Professor of Education >>>> Chestnut Hill College >>>> phone: 267-334-2905 >> >> From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Fri Mar 4 20:25:44 2016 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 15:25:44 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities In-Reply-To: <56da25dd.9a48620a.95a65.221c@mx.google.com> References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> <1B51C4B0-71FF-4F67-9F1F-BE3E6295E13E@monash.edu> <56da25dd.9a48620a.95a65.221c@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <207AD623-5490-4157-B6ED-4A5B121D571D@monash.edu> Yep Larry, I think you got it. Funnily enough, the Dialogical Self Theory conference was in The Hague, which is also home to the Escher museum. Wandering around the museum I was struck by how much of his work related to the ideas being discussed at the conference. In particular, this image (Still Life and Street) perfectly depicts for me this blurring of boundaries between inside and outside that you have picked up on. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image1.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 42404 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160305/94407d7a/attachment.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- Cheers, Helen > On 5 Mar 2016, at 11:18 am, Lplarry wrote: > > Helen, > Thank you for this wonderful article which will open a place for further inquiry. > I want to highlight what I see as central ways of you focusing on an existential approach to *ways of being* a self that congruently combines both *understanding* teaching/learning AND. *practising* teaching/learning through developing a particular kind of *self* ( the dialogic self) > The way of developing this hybrid self is through combining the James/Mead/Pierce *self* notion with the Buber/Bahktin *dialogue* notion to arrive at this particular existential way of understanding/practicing a hybrid self being/becoming. > The focus now shifts in the development of a pro/found awareness that the *between* of THIS self (between the two concepts of self and dialogue) is *interiorized* into the *within* that is no longer *within the person but now is a *within* the dialogical self. > Just as central to this focus is *reversibly* the *within* now becomes *exteriorized* into the *between*. Society from this side is not *surrounding* the self AS an external *determinant*. > In this way of existentially being there is a *society-of-selves* > The con/sequences of this shift in focus is that *developments* in the self AUTOMATICALLY imply development in society at large. > The reverse is also *true*. > > The approach taken to develop this dialogical self focuses on examining HOW *undertaking* intensely CONTEMPLATIVE and reflective and theoretical work (archival work) is a developmental process THROUGH poetic application and inquiry OF Dialogical Self Theory. > > Helen I am echoing or ventriloquizing your speaking *voice* as a way of honoring and wanting to extend your existential approach as a way of being in the *within* world. This is a method of embodying, and endowing, and re-enchanting the world. In Merleau-Ponty's approach we are *singing* the world AS transforming the between to become the *within* > The dialogical self as an emerging *image* of self. > The theme of the three types of chronotopes in Ana's work reappears: > Imaginal chronotope > Real or ontological chronotope > Community of self's chronotope > All existing *within* as interiorized AND existing *between* as exteriorized. > Re-enchanting being/becoming > Larry > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Susan Davis" > Sent: ?2016-?03-?04 1:46 PM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities > > Congrats Helen, > Some weekend reading :) A timely contribution to the discussion! > Thanks for giving us access too (often an issue on weekends when at home)! > > Cheers > Sue > > >> On 5/03/2016 7:24 am, "Helen Grimmett" wrote: >> >> Ooooh, guess what just arrived in my inbox! Sharing with those of you who >> have been following this thread: >> 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/eprint/3ZQfg4uJEFpc2BuVUqPD/full >> >> Cheers, >> Helen (wobbling a lot as I press send...) >> >> >>> On 4 Mar 2016, at 1:26 pm, Susan Davis wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Helen, >>> I appreciate your finding the time to post this as it is indeed that >>> crazy >>> time of year with term starting. I find this DP approach conceivable and >>> doable in terms of teachers working within the constraints and >>> professional responsibilities now required in most schools/education >>> sites. Teachers as well as students have to work on terms and within >>> parameters that are not necessarily of their own making, but the point >>> of >>> what you are saying is that through a dialogic process they can make >>> these >>> situations more dialogic and perhaps more 'their own'. Finding the >>> points >>> of connection and suitable animating ideas/actions is then often the key >>> for the teacher who wants to make this process meaningful for both >>> themselves and their students. >>> >>> I look forward to seeing your article once it?s published. >>> >>> Kind regards >>> Sue >>> >>> >>>> On 4/03/2016 9:16 am, "Helen Grimmett" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ana, Sue and others >>>> >>>> Apologies for the delay in responding to your question about >>>> definitions >>>> of >>>> dialogue and dialogic pedagogy. I have been teaching and in meetings >>>> flat >>>> out for the past few days (hopefully dialogically!). >>>> >>>> I have an article about to be published in "Studying Teacher >>>> Education" in >>>> which I say: >>>> >>>> "Theoretically influenced by the work of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, Dewey and >>>> Friere, and variously referred to as Dialogic instruction (Nystrand, >>>> 1997), >>>> Dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999), Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; >>>> Lyle, >>>> 2008), Dialogic pedagogies (Edwards-Groves, Anstey, & Bull, 2014) etc., >>>> these approaches all share an understanding of learning as the active >>>> co-construction of meaning developed through joint activity and >>>> language >>>> interactions between and amongst teachers and learners. Knowledge is >>>> therefore not regarded as a fixed entity to be transmitted from >>>> teacher to >>>> learner, but a fluid negotiation, re-creation and expansion of >>>> cultural, >>>> collective and individual ideas, actions and meanings; and as such >>>> requires >>>> different pedagogic strategies to ?traditional? transmissive/monologic >>>> teaching." >>>> >>>> The article is a self-study of my own journey towards trying to teach >>>> in >>>> a >>>> more dialogical way. I have been strongly influenced by Bob Fecho's >>>> work >>>> and his position that we can really only hope to be 'more dialogical' >>>> in >>>> classrooms, as our professional responsibilities as teachers mean that >>>> we >>>> must be held accountable for ensuring that curricula aims are also met. >>>> This certainly doesn't mean that we can't encourage critique, debate >>>> and >>>> expansion of those aims, but we do have to remain cognisant of them >>>> and >>>> constantly work within the tension of institutional requirements and >>>> completely free-reign dialogue. >>>> >>>> We also have professional and moral responsibilities to ensure that we >>>> are >>>> creating an environment in which students feel 'safe to' be able to >>>> engage >>>> in such critique, debate and expansion as this inevitably exposes them >>>> to >>>> risks that they have not been expected to face in more traditional >>>> transmissive/monologic classrooms. It takes time to build trust, change >>>> expectations, engender confidence, develop skills etc so that our >>>> classrooms can become more dialogical in ways that expand understanding >>>> and >>>> transform social practices rather than denigrate into hurtful arguments >>>> and >>>> personal attacks. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but we all >>>> have a >>>> right to contribute and to have our contribution heard and considered >>>> respectfully. >>>> >>>> In my view, there is nothing wrong with a teacher contributing their >>>> own >>>> understanding (which may or may not come from a place of greater >>>> experience >>>> or knowledge) so long as the door (mind!) is always open to the >>>> possibility >>>> that their may be other ways to see, do or explain things. Not to do so >>>> would be an abdication of our professional responsibility. It is only a >>>> problem if the teacher's way is seen as the only way. However, helping >>>> students (and especially student teachers) to see that is really >>>> challenging...and continues to provide plenty of research interest for >>>> me. >>>> >>>> >>>> All I've got time for at the minute... >>>> Cheers, >>>> Helen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *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 >>>> >>>> >>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A >>>> Cultural-Historical >>>> Approach >>>> >>>> >>> ng >>>> -1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/> >>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2 March 2016 at 18:08, Ana Marjanovic-Shane >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would >>>>> also >>>>> love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as >>>>> it >>>>> is >>>>> clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP >>>>> being used." >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of >>>>> dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think >>>>> that we >>>>> find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is >>>>> dialogue >>>>> and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic >>>>> pedagogy? >>>>> >>>>> So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe >>>>> Dialogic >>>>> pedagogy? >>>>> >>>>> Ana >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian, Helen, Larry, >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can >>>>>> imagine >>>>> how >>>>>> excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what >>>>>> adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes >>>>> and >>>>>> the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your >>>>> concept >>>>>> of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different >>>>>> interpretations and versions of DP being used. >>>>>> >>>>>> Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs >>>>>> in >>>>> the >>>>>> playful moments, but what is important is that children (and >>>>>> teachers) >>>>> are >>>>>> being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than >>>>> they >>>>>> might in ?real life?. As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at >>>>> times >>>>>> in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is >>>>> committed >>>>>> and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess >>>>> you >>>>>> could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged >>>>> and >>>>>> committed way. >>>>>> >>>>>> Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play >>>>> and >>>>>> its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he >>>>>> discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance. In >>>>>> the >>>>>> text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which, >>>>> as >>>>>> Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child >>>>> weeps >>>>>> in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. >>>>> 11). >>>>>> This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the >>>>>> concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where >>>>>> learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. >>>>>> Understanding >>>>>> something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism >>>>> emerging in >>>>>> a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s >>>>>> real-world attitudes and beliefs). >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>> Sue >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Larry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we >>>>> imagine >>>>>>> over material reality so that the meaning of what we do >>>>> predominates. We >>>>>>> we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play - >>>>> that?s >>>>>>> what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that >>>>>>> experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or >>>>> stepping >>>>>>> ?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being >>>>> captured >>>>>>> by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially >>>>> pretended >>>>>>> to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join >>>>> in - >>>>>>> they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with >>>>>>> little >>>>>>> intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some >>>>>>> ?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In >>>>> a >>>>>>> similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really >>>>> interested in >>>>>>> a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to >>>>> the >>>>>>> world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend >>>>> to >>>>>>> talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings >>>>> meaning >>>>>>> to the dialogue ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brian, >>>>>>>> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces >>>>> AT >>>>>>>> ONCE. This means simultaneously. >>>>>>>> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one >>>>>>>> time-space being over the other which also indicates the other >>>>>>>> time-space becomes under. >>>>>>>> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one >>>>> time-space >>>>>>>> or the other *at will*. >>>>>>>> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) >>>>> movement >>>>>>>> which is meaning making is always *at will*. >>>>>>>> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which >>>>>>>> contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning. >>>>>>>> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur >>>>>>>> prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness. >>>>>>>> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action >>>>> that >>>>>>>> occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding >>>>> discourse? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." >>>>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM >>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional >>>>>>>> dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote >>>>> learning >>>>>>>> possibilities >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, Helen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and >>>>>>>> then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!) >>>>>>>> collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if >>>>> we >>>>>>>> were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s >>>>>>>> empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of >>>>>>>> us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re >>>>>>>> experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might >>>>> mean >>>>>>>> for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 >>>>> year >>>>>>>> olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: >>>>> fabric, >>>>>>>> pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and >>>>> relationships >>>>>>>> we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to >>>>> pigs by >>>>>>>> Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to >>>>>>>> convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being >>>>>>>> killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with >>>>> Circe >>>>> ? >>>>>>>> and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do >>>>> friends >>>>> do >>>>>>>> - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, >>>>> and >>>>>>>> we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on >>>>> those >>>>>>>> tests ...) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a >>>>> lot, >>>>>>>> especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are >>>>> always >>>>> in >>>>>>>> two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other >>>>> at >>>>>>>> will - like what children do when they play without adults. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of >>>>> our >>>>>>>> actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the >>>>> acts >>>>>>>> and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others >>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>> often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the >>>>>>>> potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the >>>>>>>> imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we >>>>> can >>>>>>>> move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two >>>>>>>> chronotopes >>>>> but >>>>>>>> can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on >>>>>>>> events. >>>>>>>> While at the same time each person is always able to see through >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like >>>>> for >>>>>>>> me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to >>>>> make >>>>>>>> new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, with me present and both playing along with the children >>>>> and >>>>>>>> stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about >>>>>>>> cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the >>>>>>>> group) >>>>> and >>>>>>>> what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no >>>>> one >>>>> is >>>>>>>> dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose >>>>> whether >>>>>>>> or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean >>>>> (e.g.Circe >>>>>>>> might be an evil witch - how might we find out?). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each >>>>> person >>>>>>>> chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone >>>>> can >>>>>>>> step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality >>>>> happen >>>>>>>> together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the >>>>> sense >>>>>>>> that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had >>>>> been >>>>>>>> brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at >>>>> pictures in >>>>>>>> the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make >>>>> to >>>>>>>> find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another >>>>>>>> older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from >>>>>>>> versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children >>>>> how >>>>>>>> he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we >>>>> then >>>>>>>> embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger >>>>> boy >>>>>>>> snuck in to join his friends! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in >>>>> ?!) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call >>>>>>>> dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by >>>>>>>> Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and >>>>> Dramatic >>>>>>>> Approaches. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brian Edmiston, PhD >>>>>>>> Professor of Drama in Education >>>>>>>> Department of Teaching and Learning >>>>>>>> Columbus, OH 43210 >>>>>>>> edmiston.1@osu.edu >>>>>>>> go.osu.edu/edmiston >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to >>>>> heed, >>>>>>>> to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person >>>>>>>> participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, >>>>> lips, >>>>>>>> hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his >>>>>>>> entire self in discourse' >>>>>>>> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the >>>>> 'imagined >>>>>>>> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' >>>>> lesson or >>>>>>>> unit >>>>>>>> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for >>>>> children >>>>> to >>>>>>>> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions, >>>>>>>> emotions >>>>>>>> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has >>>>> agreed >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and >>>>> back >>>>> to >>>>>>>> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE >>>>>>>> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone >>>>> steps >>>>>>>> out of >>>>>>>> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and >>>>> actions >>>>>>>> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be >>>>> revisited, >>>>>>>> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where >>>>>>>> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and >>>>>>>> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined >>>>>>>> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles >>>>> they >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole >>>>> point is >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step >>>>> out >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it >>>>> made >>>>> me >>>>>>>> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or >>>>> "I >>>>>>>> wonder >>>>>>>> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the >>>>>>>> session >>>>>>>> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE >>>>>>>> (done >>>>>>>> > > > [The entire original message is not included.] From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sat Mar 5 10:09:46 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 10:09:46 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyondoppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promotelearningpossibilities In-Reply-To: <207AD623-5490-4157-B6ED-4A5B121D571D@monash.edu> References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> <1B51C4B0-71FF-4F67-9F1F-BE3E6295E13E@monash.edu> <56da25dd.9a48620a.95a65.221c@mx.google.com> <207AD623-5490-4157-B6ED-4A5B121D571D@monash.edu> Message-ID: <56db20f9.2966420a.17ede.ffffdb25@mx.google.com> Helen, Two questions which may extend the notion of a *repertoire of positions* that may link to other traditions that also blur boundary markings and open a space of fluid re-positioning. Can these multiple I positions be imagined as multiple *structures of consciousness* ?? Can these multiple I positions if imagined as structures of consciousness also be imagined as multiple *persons* or personified structures of consciousness (as symbolic persons) ? For example the *spoilsport* AS a personified structure of consciousness. My question is related to linking or integrating other traditions which may be playing in the same field of understanding and practice. If positions reorganize and reintegrate are they not structuring and restructuring?? Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Helen Grimmett" Sent: ?2016-?03-?04 8:28 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyondoppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promotelearningpossibilities Yep Larry, I think you got it. Funnily enough, the Dialogical Self Theory conference was in The Hague, which is also home to the Escher museum. Wandering around the museum I was struck by how much of his work related to the ideas being discussed at the conference. In particular, this image (Still Life and Street) perfectly depicts for me this blurring of boundaries between inside and outside that you have picked up on. From s.davis@cqu.edu.au Sat Mar 5 17:42:12 2016 From: s.davis@cqu.edu.au (Susan Davis) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 01:42:12 +0000 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: 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Mar 5 18:19:11 2016 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 02:19:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: The Problem With the GRE In-Reply-To: <304D15A9-6141-4F01-B2D5-3A58B6B6098C@gmail.com> References: <304D15A9-6141-4F01-B2D5-3A58B6B6098C@gmail.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Gavelek Date: 6 March 2016 at 02:04 Subject: The Problem With the GRE To: Huw Lloyd The exam ?is a proxy for asking ?Are you rich?? ?Are you white?? ?Are you male??? Read More: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/the-problem-with-the-gre/471633/ *James GavelekAssociate ProfessorCoordinator of PhD program in Literacy, Language, and CultureUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoCollege of Education1040 W. HarrisonRoom 1412 ETMSW312 996-5791 <312%20996-5791>* From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Mar 6 06:04:02 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 06:04:02 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyondoppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promotelearningpossibilities In-Reply-To: <207AD623-5490-4157-B6ED-4A5B121D571D@monash.edu> References: <36558209-2DCA-4DFF-A604-F4788E228F93@gmail.com> <56d5bca0.964b620a.91970.ffff9bd6@mx.google.com> <18271A1D-3525-4134-815E-8B46D963E398@gmail.com> <56d65dc2.61f8420a.86d60.0978@mx.google.com> <0F166B89-B818-4A56-BAD6-617468A8A0CE@osu.edu> <1B51C4B0-71FF-4F67-9F1F-BE3E6295E13E@monash.edu> <56da25dd.9a48620a.95a65.221c@mx.google.com> <207AD623-5490-4157-B6ED-4A5B121D571D@monash.edu> Message-ID: <56dc38d3.4693420a.40613.ffff90aa@mx.google.com> Helen, In the spirit of Dialogical Self Theory [DST] I am moving through the door you opened into the poetic imaginary. In particular I want to turn to page 7 where you describe the coming into being of your original poem and how you articulate your understanding of what is occurring in this original poem. The theme I am returning to is the notion of *synthesis* [or *essences*] of a particular *phenomenon*. I as a reader was encountering a sense of what I will call *existential* phenomenology. The question of what is showing up or becoming revealed in the original poem. On page 7 you describe this process of creating the original poem. Your reflections *expanded* to INCLUDE and intertwine snippets of data from other teacher participants, ideas from literature and memories, and observations of your own observations. Your expanding listening included a poetic *synthesizing* that generated a particular *essence of* a phenomenon. In this case the phenomenon of ?Just Tell Us?. The synthesis occurred from gathering together a variety of perspectives and when you expressed these emerging voices within this poetic form other teachers and learners also experienced a shared recognition. You describe this poetic form as *carrying* a humanized, emotionalized, sense of the different *voice* that was uttering each perspective. I at this point want to suggest the metaphor *carry* may also include the sense of being *captured by* the humanized, emotionalized, sense of the different voices which may include other imagined *persons* [personifications] voicing each perspective. I introduce this addition to introduce a wobble within understanding that we are being carried or captured not only from within multiple *I* positions. These imaginal voices may include our multiple *I?s*but may also include voices that are speaking to us from other *sources*. However, whether multiple I?s or multiple others arei becoming expressed through personified voices, the poetic form is expressing these voices. You then move to the realm of what you *believe* [is this belief also a faith?]. You believe this poetic form is what helps create a *personal* empathic connection between the writer/reader AND THE PHENOMENON being described.. This phenomenon [whether multiple I?s or possibly other voices] when expressed poetically is distinctly *different* from regular research notes and distinctly different from prose. Helen, you refer back to Emerson?s ?An American Scholar? which explores existential phenomena as transcendental which would open another door into poetic form. What does the transcendental American tradition carry [or transcendental tradition offer] as generative for Dialogical Self Theory. My point of *wobble* embraces your understanding of *synthesis*. I wonder however if notions such as a person?s personal *muse* can be considered existing as only multiple I?s or may also describe a transcendental version of the *other* who is not *self* but is another source of *voice* that carries [or captures] us if we listen and *hear* that voice. Stanley Cavell was deeply moved by Emerson?s voice as were the American pragmatists that you mention in the article. Thank you for illuminating the validity of the poetic form of existential phenomenology. I found your personal quest generative of hearing multiple voices speaking and generating syn/thesis. Larry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Helen Grimmett Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 8:28 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyondoppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promotelearningpossibilities Yep Larry, I think you got it. Funnily enough, the Dialogical Self Theory conference was in The Hague, which is also home to the Escher museum. Wandering around the museum I was struck by how much of his work related to the ideas being discussed at the conference. In particular, this image (Still Life and Street) perfectly depicts for me this blurring of boundaries between inside and outside that you have picked up on. From bferholt@gmail.com Sun Mar 6 07:17:38 2016 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 10:17:38 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The Problem With the GRE In-Reply-To: References: <304D15A9-6141-4F01-B2D5-3A58B6B6098C@gmail.com> Message-ID: See the last paragraph of the article. NY state has -- as of a few months ago -- a mandate for the whole state that all who enter schools of education for a masters degree must first take the GRE. Here we are all fighting hard against this -- it was not decided by professors of education. And I have a steady stream of students n my office who are literally crying about it -- they have initial certifications to teach and have been teaching already but will loose these certifications without their masters degree. But we still need to get the word out that this happened, I see. Beth On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: James Gavelek > Date: 6 March 2016 at 02:04 > Subject: The Problem With the GRE > To: Huw Lloyd > > > The exam ?is a proxy for asking ?Are you rich?? ?Are you white?? ?Are you > male??? > > Read More: > > http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/the-problem-with-the-gre/471633/ > > > > > > > > > *James GavelekAssociate ProfessorCoordinator of PhD program in Literacy, > Language, and CultureUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoCollege of > Education1040 W. HarrisonRoom 1412 ETMSW312 996-5791 <312%20996-5791>* > -- Beth Ferholt Assistant Professor Department of Early Childhood and Art Education Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Sun Mar 6 07:26:27 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 15:26:27 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The Problem With the GRE In-Reply-To: References: <304D15A9-6141-4F01-B2D5-3A58B6B6098C@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is a testing assault on the profession in an effort to ultimately delegitimize the field. It already cost up to $1000 in testing in Connecticut to get licensure. We are piloting EDtpa so we like New York can handle assessment over to a gigantic corporation. In fact teachers sit four to five times longer for assessments than lawyers and doctors. All of this designed to propagate the myth of the failed teacher and weaken organized labor. On Sun, Mar 6, 2016, 10:19 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: > See the last paragraph of the article. > NY state has -- as of a few months ago -- a mandate for the whole state > that all who enter schools of education for a masters degree must first > take the GRE. > Here we are all fighting hard against this -- it was not decided by > professors of education. And I have a steady stream of students n my > office who are literally crying about it -- they have initial > certifications to teach and have been teaching already but will loose these > certifications without their masters degree. But we still need to get the > word out that this happened, I see. > Beth > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: James Gavelek > > Date: 6 March 2016 at 02:04 > > Subject: The Problem With the GRE > > To: Huw Lloyd > > > > > > The exam ?is a proxy for asking ?Are you rich?? ?Are you white?? ?Are you > > male??? > > > > Read More: > > > > > http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/the-problem-with-the-gre/471633/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *James GavelekAssociate ProfessorCoordinator of PhD program in Literacy, > > Language, and CultureUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoCollege of > > Education1040 W. HarrisonRoom 1412 ETMSW312 996-5791 <312%20996-5791>* > > > > > > -- > Beth Ferholt > Assistant Professor > Department of Early Childhood and Art Education > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > From bferholt@gmail.com Sun Mar 6 08:17:39 2016 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The Problem With the GRE In-Reply-To: References: <304D15A9-6141-4F01-B2D5-3A58B6B6098C@gmail.com> Message-ID: YES. On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > This is a testing assault on the profession in an effort to ultimately > delegitimize the field. > > It already cost up to $1000 in testing in Connecticut to get licensure. We > are piloting EDtpa so we like New York can handle assessment over to a > gigantic corporation. > > In fact teachers sit four to five times longer for assessments than lawyers > and doctors. > > All of this designed to propagate the myth of the failed teacher and weaken > organized labor. > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016, 10:19 AM Beth Ferholt wrote: > > > See the last paragraph of the article. > > NY state has -- as of a few months ago -- a mandate for the whole state > > that all who enter schools of education for a masters degree must first > > take the GRE. > > Here we are all fighting hard against this -- it was not decided by > > professors of education. And I have a steady stream of students n my > > office who are literally crying about it -- they have initial > > certifications to teach and have been teaching already but will loose > these > > certifications without their masters degree. But we still need to get > the > > word out that this happened, I see. > > Beth > > > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: James Gavelek > > > Date: 6 March 2016 at 02:04 > > > Subject: The Problem With the GRE > > > To: Huw Lloyd > > > > > > > > > The exam ?is a proxy for asking ?Are you rich?? ?Are you white?? ?Are > you > > > male??? > > > > > > Read More: > > > > > > > > > http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/the-problem-with-the-gre/471633/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *James GavelekAssociate ProfessorCoordinator of PhD program in > Literacy, > > > Language, and CultureUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoCollege of > > > Education1040 W. HarrisonRoom 1412 ETMSW312 996-5791 <312%20996-5791>* > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Beth Ferholt > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Early Childhood and Art Education > > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > > 2900 Bedford Avenue > > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > > Fax: (718) 951-4816 > > > -- Beth Ferholt Assistant Professor Department of Early Childhood and Art Education Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Mar 6 16:33:46 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 16:33:46 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Raymond Williams : Drama and Imagination Message-ID: <56dccc6b.4e46620a.2daf9.ffffdf6c@mx.google.com> Mike I am following up your suggestion to start a thread exploring Drama and the Imagination that also brings Raymond Williams within this conversation. I went to my bookshelf and returned to his book *Marxism and Literature* and turned to the section titled *The Sociology of Culture* On pages 137 & 138 he is exploring the basic outlines of a Marxist cultural Sociology in its simplest outlines. The intent to study different types of institution and formation in cultural production and distribution and linking these within social material processes. Connected specifically to *modes* of production which is not reduced or limited to techniques and functions within a capital market economy. For Williams *modes of production* extends also to the active formation of audiences and readerships as examples of characteristic social relations. These characteristic formations occur within particular *forms* of cultural activity which are *expressed* [carried out]. Williams then cautions that within this general outline we do not reduce social relations and social content to these explicit and *manifest* GENERAL forms. To Marxist studies of *institutions* and *formations* it is crucial that we add studies of *forms*: For Williams the study of forms is NOT by way of illustration to explain institutions and formations, but rather forms as the most specific *entry into* certain kinds of formation. It is at this *juncture* that Williams turns to a very different sociological tradition ? the sociology of *consciousness* which was a seminal element in the period of classical sociology. This sociology of consciousness tradition is well represented within the Marxist tradition by the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School resisted the reduction of the sociology of consciousness TO the sociology of knowledge. Within the empirical positivist tradition there has been a further reduction from *knowledge* TO the sociology of the institutions of *organized* knowledge, where familiar a priori kinds of evidence, organized consciously within ideas and relationships is represented and made available. Williams is critical of Marxist tendencies to *understand* consciousness as *knowledge* which he suggest may be primarily *determined* by positivism with a consequence of a weakening of understanding of the forms of art and literature. In Williams words; ?For consciousness is not only knowledge , just as language is not only indication and naming? For Williams the forms are also *imagination*. Williams then moves to the example of drama. Thus a sociology of drama is concerned with institutions [theatres] with formations [groups of dramatists, dramatical and theatrical movements], with formed relationships [audiences including the formation of audiences within theatres and within the wider social formation. However Williams goes beyond institutions, formations, and formed relationshipse to INCLUDE *forms* not only in their relation to world-views or structures of feeling, but including the more *active sense* of their performance or expression [social movements of speaking, moving, representing]. Forms relate to specific selection of issues, specific kinds of interpretation, and of course specifically produced content AS fundamentally important content. Williams says there are equally important other forms which are sometimes more fundamental social content that can also be found in the basic social means. [historically variable and always active forms [of language and movement and representation]. Williams states emphatically that the more *manifest* social elements can be *seen to depend* on these forms. So we arrive at this sense of form as the foundation and that opens the question of how the forms are carried out through the processes of imagination. I will pause at this point as I wanted to bring in Williams focusing on the relevance of *form* underlying, institutions and formations. Larry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From ewall@umich.edu Mon Mar 7 10:05:43 2016 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:05:43 -0600 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: 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Fri Mar 11 04:14:44 2016 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:14:44 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Two worlds, Urie Bronfenbrenner Message-ID: I am reading this wonderful work of Bronfenbrenner, it is my second, deeper reading just after the first. As far as I know he did not have any particular political inclination towards Soviet Union, Marxism etc. But it is interesting that the Part I of his book (and it seems this is his first book) is selected to have the title of "The making of the new soviet man". I highly appreciate if any other such cross-cultural including Soviet (or solely on Soviet child upbringing) is proposed. Ulvi From jrtudge@uncg.edu Fri Mar 11 04:41:41 2016 From: jrtudge@uncg.edu (Jonathan Tudge) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:41:41 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Two worlds, Urie Bronfenbrenner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Ulvi, Bronfenbrenner wrote a fair number of papers about Soviet child-rearing practices in the 1960s, as well as papers describing the "mirror image" (the way Americans see Russians and vice versa). Even more interesting, from my point of view, is the fact that he wrote in the 1970s papers in which he argued that American child-rearing efforts would be significantly improved by incorporating some aspects of Soviet approaches. Cheers, Jon ~~~~~~~~~~~ Jonathan Tudge Professor Office: 155 Stone http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/ Mailing address: 248 Stone Building Department of Human Development and Family Studies PO Box 26170 The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 USA phone (336) 223-6181 fax (336) 334-5076 http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/Tudge.html On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > I am reading this wonderful work of Bronfenbrenner, it is my second, deeper > reading just after the first. > > As far as I know he did not have any particular political inclination > towards Soviet Union, Marxism etc. > > But it is interesting that the Part I of his book (and it seems this is his > first book) > is selected to have the title of "The making of the new soviet man". > > I highly appreciate if any other such cross-cultural including Soviet (or > solely on Soviet child upbringing) is proposed. > > Ulvi > From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Mar 11 09:25:46 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:25:46 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [commfac] Dept of Communication Job Announcement JPF01042_Lecturer Academic Year 2016-2017 (Unit 18-Non-Senate Faculty) In-Reply-To: <7C515C763279BE49B195C473EB2F823B4D8F30B3@HSMBX01.AD.UCSD.EDU> References: <7C515C763279BE49B195C473EB2F823B4D8F30B3@HSMBX01.AD.UCSD.EDU> Message-ID: For the media minded and job hunters among us. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas, Renee Date: Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:22 AM Subject: [commfac] Dept of Communication Job Announcement JPF01042_Lecturer Academic Year 2016-2017 (Unit 18-Non-Senate Faculty) To: "dept@communication.ucsd.edu" *Open Friday, March 11th, 2016 through Friday, April 1st, 2016 Lecturer AY2016-2017* *DESCRIPTION:* The Department of Communication ( http://communication.ucsd.edu/) within the Division of Social Sciences at the University of California, San Diego is seeking to make an appointment at the Lecturer Academic Year (Unit 18-Non-Senate Faculty) level. Candidate's must have a Ph.D. completed by June 2016; and , evidence of strong teaching experience. Responsibilities entail the effective instruction of students; teaching classes in accordance with course objectives and published schedules; advising students on academic matters and; maintaining an active interest in the advances/current thinking in her/his subject area. The Department of Communication at the University of California, San Diego is committed to academic excellence and diversity within the faculty, staff, and student body. Given that commitment, the department is interested in recruiting candidates who are committed to the highest standards of scholarship and professional activity and will make a strong and meaningful contribution to the development of a campus climate that supports equality and diversity. A complete description of the courses for which Lecturers are being sought may be found at: http://communication.ucsd.edu. Candidates must identify the specific course or courses they hope to teach when applying. *Salary* is commensurate with qualifications and based on University of California pay scales. Job Location (La Jolla): San Diego, CA *To Apply:* Submit Applications & Materials On Line: UCSD AP-On-Line-Recruit https://apol-recruit.ucsd.edu/apply/JPF01042 *Required Materials:* 1. Cover Letter (Indicating courses being applied for and teaching experience relevant to course topic. If applying for COMM 146 or COMM 162 also provide proposed course topic and/or subject of "Advanced Studies") 2. CV (Short version relevant university teaching experience, 4 page max) 3. Ph.D. or Expected completion of by June, 2016 ( Provide grad div letter, certificate or transcript.) 4. Teaching Evals(Within last 2 year period) 5. Reference Requirements (3 Contact information only) 6. Statement of Contributions to diversity - Applicants should summarize their past or potential contributions to diversity. See our Faculty Equity site for more information. *Qualification:* Ph.D. and evidence of strong teaching experience. Applicants should summarize their past or *potential contributions to diversity*. For more information: http://facultyexcellence.ucsd.edu/c2d/index.html Learn more information about this recruitment: http://communication.ucsd.edu AA-EOE: The University of California is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age or protected veteran status. Thank you for applying! Ren?e DeLisa Thomas Academic Personnel Specialist Department of Communication #0503 Media Center and Communication Building University of California San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0503 Phone: (858) 534 0234 Fax: (858) 534 7315 rdthomas@ucsd.edu http://communication.ucsd.edu -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Mar 11 14:33:37 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:33:37 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Two worlds, Urie Bronfenbrenner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ulvi: Bronfenbrenner was born in Moscow, just two weeks after Lenin returned to Russia and read the April Theses to the Bolshevik Party, preparing them to take state power within six months. Historical coincidence? Of course it is. A more important fact about Bronfenbrenner's life is that he had to make a career in American academia at the height of the McCarthyite purge. Which does make the papers that Jonathan pointed to all the more remarkable and all the more courageous. True, they were not published until the sixties and seventies, but then they probably COULDN'T have been published before then. To me, what is most Marxist about Bronfenbrenner is his recognition that the most important ecosystem in the development of the child is one that the child never even lays eyes on: what Daddy (and more rarely Mommy) have to do for a living. This was a very unpopular thing to say, and it still is, because it is not only Marxist but Durkheimian: it implies that the social and the interpersonal really are two qualitatively different levels of being requiring two qualitatively different kinds of analysis (part of the recent discussion on drama touched this point: the kind of freedom espoused by the Matusov/Marjanovic-Shane school of development is largely concerned with the interpersonal and not the social). But how do the social and the interpersonal get so thoroughly inter-connected by the time the child is an adolescent? In my country, it is depressingly straightforward: I remember how the "Head Start" programmes which Bronfenbrenner (and Labov) worked indefatigably to create were almost exclusively made up of kids from the other side of a chain-link fence which ran right down the centre of Prospect Park in Minneapolis, separating the homes of the overwhelmingly white University of Minnesota professors and their kids (including me) from the overwhelmingly black housing project where we learnt, by sixth grade, not to play. What I am re-reading right now is the second volume of Ruqaiya Hasan's Collected Works, "Semantic Variation" (something she told me to read the last time I met her and I wanted to talk about her first volume). Ruqaiya insists throughout that we distinguish between the "material situational setting" of talk (the sort of thing that shows up on the child's purely visio-graphic analysis of context) and the semantic context (the sort of things which are selected as worthy of processing into language). It's not that the child has to imagine what Mommies and Daddies do for a living; it's that they have to imagine what kinds of things Mommy and Daddy select as worth talking about. These semantic orientations are not the same for different classes of people, and Ruqaiya's (and Bronfennbrenner's) great insight and great courage lay in tirelessly telling us so. But for me, growing up, there was a clear visographic clue which infallibly linked any potental friend to which side of the chain-link fence a potential friend played on, namely skin color. Tragically, I had mastered this clue by sixth grade. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Jonathan Tudge wrote: > Dear Ulvi, > > Bronfenbrenner wrote a fair number of papers about Soviet child-rearing > practices in the 1960s, as well as papers describing the "mirror image" > (the way Americans see Russians and vice versa). > > Even more interesting, from my point of view, is the fact that he wrote in > the 1970s papers in which he argued that American child-rearing efforts > would be significantly improved by incorporating some aspects of Soviet > approaches. > > Cheers, > > Jon > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Jonathan Tudge > > Professor > Office: 155 Stone > > http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/ > > Mailing address: > 248 Stone Building > Department of Human Development and Family Studies > PO Box 26170 > The University of North Carolina at Greensboro > Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 > USA > > phone (336) 223-6181 > fax (336) 334-5076 > > http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/Tudge.html > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > I am reading this wonderful work of Bronfenbrenner, it is my second, > deeper > > reading just after the first. > > > > As far as I know he did not have any particular political inclination > > towards Soviet Union, Marxism etc. > > > > But it is interesting that the Part I of his book (and it seems this is > his > > first book) > > is selected to have the title of "The making of the new soviet man". > > > > I highly appreciate if any other such cross-cultural including Soviet (or > > solely on Soviet child upbringing) is proposed. > > > > Ulvi > > > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Fri Mar 11 15:17:01 2016 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 01:17:01 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Two worlds, Urie Bronfenbrenner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I thought the same, that is, this is really very courageous to write on Soviet experience like this, with these results of USSR, in US. He first visited USSR in 1960, then 6 times until 1967. I intend to focus on the background of UB's courageous effort and highly appreciate any piece of information and comment. What Two Worlds made me think again is that, Soviets, despite many defects, did not deserve to be dissolved like this. Have a look at this: "How CAN WE judge the worth of a society? On what basis can we predict bow well a nation will sun'ive and prosper? Many indices could be used for this purpose, among them the Gross National Product, the birth rate, crime statistics, mental health data, etc. In this bock we propose yet another criterion: the concern of one generation for the next, If the children and youth of a nation are afforded opportunity to develop their capacities to the fullest, if they are given the knowledge to understand the world and the wisdom to change it, then the prospects for the future are bright. In contrast, a society which neglects its children, however well it may function in other respects, risks eventual disorganization and demise". (Two worlds, p.1) This is ruthless criticism as Marx writes to Ruge (1843 September) and very courageous indeed. This made me think that what was not to be demolished has been demolished in 1990. And what was to be demolished, what was deserving and deserves more and more every day, continues to live. Two worlds. I also think that Soviets' own defects and imperialist propaganda created an immense ideological effect, of a character of dystopia, that humanity will not be able to exit from this hell of capitalism, that it does not deserve new revolutions given the result in USSR, in China. I am very much opposed to this pessimism. Such a pessimism can be valid for "middle class" people, who can live with capitalism. But what about millions of proletarians? They need revolutions. This is I believe materialism. Here once more we come to Lenin because we know very well that he always thought of the emancipation of the proletariat, "real proletariat" I would say. On the side, as to the intelellectuals, to the scientists. Can they close their eyes that what was scientifically correct for humanity, for instance, in terms of upbringing, was the one in USSR and continue to hang in, to entertain with "science" detached from the humanity's burning needs. I think UB's effort deserves a great respect in this regard, that he did not close his eyes to the reality which developed before his eyes and appreciated the humanity's successful efforts on the other side of the planet. Very exemplary indeed, for today too. Finally, he is exemplary also in terms of establishing a bridge to what is not mainstream in, outside of capitalist academia. Ulvi On 12 March 2016 at 00:33, David Kellogg wrote: > Ulvi: > > Bronfenbrenner was born in Moscow, just two weeks after Lenin returned to > Russia and read the April Theses to the Bolshevik Party, preparing them to > take state power within six months. Historical coincidence? > > Of course it is. A more important fact about Bronfenbrenner's life is that > he had to make a career in American academia at the height of the > McCarthyite purge. Which does make the papers that Jonathan pointed to all > the more remarkable and all the more courageous. True, they were not > published until the sixties and seventies, but then they probably COULDN'T > have been published before then. > > To me, what is most Marxist about Bronfenbrenner is his recognition that > the most important ecosystem in the development of the child is one that > the child never even lays eyes on: what Daddy (and more rarely Mommy) have > to do for a living. This was a very unpopular thing to say, and it still > is, because it is not only Marxist but Durkheimian: it implies that the > social and the interpersonal really are two qualitatively different levels > of being requiring two qualitatively different kinds of analysis (part of > the recent discussion on drama touched this point: the kind of freedom > espoused by the Matusov/Marjanovic-Shane school of development is largely > concerned with the interpersonal and not the social). > > But how do the social and the interpersonal get so thoroughly > inter-connected by the time the child is an adolescent? In my country, it > is depressingly straightforward: I remember how the "Head Start" programmes > which Bronfenbrenner (and Labov) worked indefatigably to create were almost > exclusively made up of kids from the other side of a chain-link fence which > ran right down the centre of Prospect Park in Minneapolis, separating the > homes of the overwhelmingly white University of Minnesota professors and > their kids (including me) from the overwhelmingly black housing project > where we learnt, by sixth grade, not to play. > > What I am re-reading right now is the second volume of Ruqaiya Hasan's > Collected Works, "Semantic Variation" (something she told me to read the > last time I met her and I wanted to talk about her first volume). Ruqaiya > insists throughout that we distinguish between the "material situational > setting" of talk (the sort of thing that shows up on the child's purely > visio-graphic analysis of context) and the semantic context (the sort of > things which are selected as worthy of processing into language). It's not > that the child has to imagine what Mommies and Daddies do for a living; > it's that they have to imagine what kinds of things Mommy and Daddy select > as worth talking about. > > These semantic orientations are not the same for different classes of > people, and Ruqaiya's (and Bronfennbrenner's) great insight and great > courage lay in tirelessly telling us so. But for me, growing up, there was > a clear visographic clue which infallibly linked any potental friend to > which side of the chain-link fence a potential friend played on, namely > skin color. Tragically, I had mastered this clue by sixth grade. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Jonathan Tudge wrote: > > > Dear Ulvi, > > > > Bronfenbrenner wrote a fair number of papers about Soviet child-rearing > > practices in the 1960s, as well as papers describing the "mirror image" > > (the way Americans see Russians and vice versa). > > > > Even more interesting, from my point of view, is the fact that he wrote > in > > the 1970s papers in which he argued that American child-rearing efforts > > would be significantly improved by incorporating some aspects of Soviet > > approaches. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jon > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Jonathan Tudge > > > > Professor > > Office: 155 Stone > > > > http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/ > > > > Mailing address: > > 248 Stone Building > > Department of Human Development and Family Studies > > PO Box 26170 > > The University of North Carolina at Greensboro > > Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 > > USA > > > > phone (336) 223-6181 > > fax (336) 334-5076 > > > > http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/Tudge.html > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > > > I am reading this wonderful work of Bronfenbrenner, it is my second, > > deeper > > > reading just after the first. > > > > > > As far as I know he did not have any particular political inclination > > > towards Soviet Union, Marxism etc. > > > > > > But it is interesting that the Part I of his book (and it seems this is > > his > > > first book) > > > is selected to have the title of "The making of the new soviet man". > > > > > > I highly appreciate if any other such cross-cultural including Soviet > (or > > > solely on Soviet child upbringing) is proposed. > > > > > > Ulvi > > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Mar 11 15:45:19 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:45:19 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Two worlds, Urie Bronfenbrenner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56e358a3.4347620a.909df.5a7e@mx.google.com> David, Let's continue this approach to boundary marking between the social and the interpersonal and grant that Matsuov and Ana focus on or *select* the interpersonal level (layer) to reflect upon. We could then intentionally or purposely shift our focus to another level (layer) involving visio/graphic social/material phenomena. Now I have been reading about this intentional movement moving between layers as a type or form of being. This. Is the form of being-TOWARDS in contrast to the being-IN (or being-WITHIN). Referring back to the thread where the *between* can move towards the *within* and in reverse the *within* can move towards the *between* of Helen's exploration of Dialogical Self Theory. Are these two differing forms or layers of *relation* and the being-toward relation is the transitive relation. This transitive relation implies a foundational *power* of movement and carrying *beyond* (meta/pherin, meta/phor, meta/morphis). This dynamic relation of the *being-towards* which refuses the reality of what now is given (possessed) in order to orient intentionally to what may *possibly* be. Now to return to the *place* of drama and dialogue is there an intentional being-towards at the layer of the interpersonal and also another being-towards at the layer of the social? Are these differing layers implying different *figures* or patterns of transitive being-towards? I am not assuming that intentional means individual *will* power or conscious deliberate decision making. I assume that this type self-conscious will power is a subset of the more general intentional orienting *being-towards* movement which may develop into purposeful internal self-will. There is a vast expanse of being-towards which remains an intentional orienting approach which is also pre-reflective. A complex question? Larry -----Original Message----- From: "David Kellogg" Sent: ?2016-?03-?11 2:36 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Two worlds, Urie Bronfenbrenner Ulvi: Bronfenbrenner was born in Moscow, just two weeks after Lenin returned to Russia and read the April Theses to the Bolshevik Party, preparing them to take state power within six months. Historical coincidence? Of course it is. A more important fact about Bronfenbrenner's life is that he had to make a career in American academia at the height of the McCarthyite purge. Which does make the papers that Jonathan pointed to all the more remarkable and all the more courageous. True, they were not published until the sixties and seventies, but then they probably COULDN'T have been published before then. To me, what is most Marxist about Bronfenbrenner is his recognition that the most important ecosystem in the development of the child is one that the child never even lays eyes on: what Daddy (and more rarely Mommy) have to do for a living. This was a very unpopular thing to say, and it still is, because it is not only Marxist but Durkheimian: it implies that the social and the interpersonal really are two qualitatively different levels of being requiring two qualitatively different kinds of analysis (part of the recent discussion on drama touched this point: the kind of freedom espoused by the Matusov/Marjanovic-Shane school of development is largely concerned with the interpersonal and not the social). But how do the social and the interpersonal get so thoroughly inter-connected by the time the child is an adolescent? In my country, it is depressingly straightforward: I remember how the "Head Start" programmes which Bronfenbrenner (and Labov) worked indefatigably to create were almost exclusively made up of kids from the other side of a chain-link fence which ran right down the centre of Prospect Park in Minneapolis, separating the homes of the overwhelmingly white University of Minnesota professors and their kids (including me) from the overwhelmingly black housing project where we learnt, by sixth grade, not to play. What I am re-reading right now is the second volume of Ruqaiya Hasan's Collected Works, "Semantic Variation" (something she told me to read the last time I met her and I wanted to talk about her first volume). Ruqaiya insists throughout that we distinguish between the "material situational setting" of talk (the sort of thing that shows up on the child's purely visio-graphic analysis of context) and the semantic context (the sort of things which are selected as worthy of processing into language). It's not that the child has to imagine what Mommies and Daddies do for a living; it's that they have to imagine what kinds of things Mommy and Daddy select as worth talking about. These semantic orientations are not the same for different classes of people, and Ruqaiya's (and Bronfennbrenner's) great insight and great courage lay in tirelessly telling us so. But for me, growing up, there was a clear visographic clue which infallibly linked any potental friend to which side of the chain-link fence a potential friend played on, namely skin color. Tragically, I had mastered this clue by sixth grade. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Jonathan Tudge wrote: > Dear Ulvi, > > Bronfenbrenner wrote a fair number of papers about Soviet child-rearing > practices in the 1960s, as well as papers describing the "mirror image" > (the way Americans see Russians and vice versa). > > Even more interesting, from my point of view, is the fact that he wrote in > the 1970s papers in which he argued that American child-rearing efforts > would be significantly improved by incorporating some aspects of Soviet > approaches. > > Cheers, > > Jon > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Jonathan Tudge > > Professor > Office: 155 Stone > > http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/ > > Mailing address: > 248 Stone Building > Department of Human Development and Family Studies > PO Box 26170 > The University of North Carolina at Greensboro > Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 > USA > > phone (336) 223-6181 > fax (336) 334-5076 > > http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/Tudge.html > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > I am reading this wonderful work of Bronfenbrenner, it is my second, > deeper > > reading just after the first. > > > > As far as I know he did not have any particular political inclination > > towards Soviet Union, Marxism etc. > > > > But it is interesting that the Part I of his book (and it seems this is > his > > first book) > > is selected to have the title of "The making of the new soviet man". > > > > I highly appreciate if any other such cross-cultural including Soviet (or > > solely on Soviet child upbringing) is proposed. > > > > Ulvi > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sat Mar 12 07:13:57 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:13:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Two worlds, Urie Bronfenbrenner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would have reached the opposite conclusion, David: that the social and interpersonal are thoroughly interpenetrated. The interactions a child has with her parents are profoundly shaped by the work that they are involved in. The food she eats, for example, is what is made possible by the wages the parents learn. The hours they are available to her at home depend on the hours they need to dedicate to work. The child does not know this explicitly, of course, but she is living the contradictions of social class and the political economy of the society as a second nature, as though they are a natural necessity. Martin > On Mar 11, 2016, at 5:33 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > To me, what is most Marxist about Bronfenbrenner is his recognition that > the most important ecosystem in the development of the child is one that > the child never even lays eyes on: what Daddy (and more rarely Mommy) have > to do for a living. This was a very unpopular thing to say, and it still > is, because it is not only Marxist but Durkheimian: it implies that the > social and the interpersonal really are two qualitatively different levels > of being requiring two qualitatively different kinds of analysis From smago@uga.edu Sat Mar 12 09:05:31 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 17:05:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: Peter Villmann would like a copy of "Situating Teacher Practice" In-Reply-To: <499CFD57-6776-40E3-8B99-4D7EBD4940F1@gmail.com> References: <0100015367e5ac92-3d2dc523-197b-48f1-b49e-5235ab535349-000000@email.amazonses.com> <499CFD57-6776-40E3-8B99-4D7EBD4940F1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Colleagues, I got this request today. If you know of anyone who meets this profile, please contact villmannpeter@gmail.com and no need to copy me. From: Peter Villmann [mailto:villmannpeter@gmail.com] I was also wanted to know if you had any connection with Profs. at U of T in Toronto that specialized in Vygotsky that you could refer me to. From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Mar 12 12:33:32 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:33:32 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Two worlds, Urie Bronfenbrenner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ulvi, Larry...and Martin (not necessarily in that order!) I have some wonderful data from an ex-grad student (back in my professorial days). It is shortly after the terrible Sewol disaster, when a whole boatload of young working class high school students were drowned like rats thanks to the malign neglect of the captain, the crew, but above all the unregulated ferry company and the unregulating government. The teacher's trying to get the kids to remember and WRITE one of my cute little Bowdlerizations of Shakespeare's Hamlet. She's told them about the death of Ophelia, and now they are going to learn about it from the mouth of Hamlet's mother Gertrude and through the eyes and ears of Ophelia's brother Laertes. : Gertrude: Your sister?s drowned, Laertes! Laertes: Drowned? Oh, where? Gertrude: Where? There. By the stream. Laertes: By the stream? When? Gertrude: When? Just now. She climbed a tree. Laertes: She climbed a tree? Why did she? Gertrude She went mad. Then she fell down. She fell in. And then she...drowned. Laertes: She has too much water now. No more tears. I want blood. We've divided the kids up into pairs, with one writing down Gertrude's lines and the other those of Laertes. The kids then try to reconstruct the scene using their lines. But in the event, this is what we get: Gertrude: Your sister drowned. Laertes: Drowned? Oh! Where? Gertrude: She drowned. Laertes: She drowned? When? Gertrude: She, now ,now. Laertes: I don?t like Hamlet. I want Hamlet?s kill. Gertrude: Maybe you kill Hamlet. I will kill you. Laertes: Oh! No! Now, I submit to Larry that this is creativity, or "being towards", but it is INVOLUNTARY creativity. The children are not being creative because like good little romantic poets they believe that the spark of the eternal is embodied in each individual creative breast, nor are they being creative because they want to grow up and be Shakespeare, Gertrude, or even Laertes. They are being creative because they would like to be totally uncreative and imitative and their memory isn't up to it. I submit to Martin that the interpersonal (that is, the dialogic, the improvisational) is totally linked to the social (that is, the monologic, in this case the memorizable) but it is just as true to say that they are totally distinct. What is above all true is that you cannot get from one to the other without a fight (a crisis). And, of course, I submit to Ulvi that that fight is "revolutionary" in every sense of the word (including the archaic sense of an "inward turning" which is the sense that Vygotsky uses). The child is trying to seize control of the means of development, that is, the wording, and the child finds to his chagrin that it is not so easy to be both the site of development and the source, that the means of development just gives you more meaning than you know what to do with. I think child development can be seen in this way. The revolutionary crises in development happen for the same reason they happen in world history: the power of being social beings simply overflows the interpersonal relations that we build to hold them in the same way that the power unleashed by social revolutions in Russia and China swamped the petty aspirations of the incompetent and unimaginative bureaucracies at the helm, and all they could do with that power is to sink the whole ship. David Kellogg Macquarie University (which ultimately cost me my job) On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Martin John Packer < mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > I would have reached the opposite conclusion, David: that the social and > interpersonal are thoroughly interpenetrated. The interactions a child has > with her parents are profoundly shaped by the work that they are involved > in. The food she eats, for example, is what is made possible by the wages > the parents learn. The hours they are available to her at home depend on > the hours they need to dedicate to work. The child does not know this > explicitly, of course, but she is living the contradictions of social class > and the political economy of the society as a second nature, as though they > are a natural necessity. > > Martin > > > > > > On Mar 11, 2016, at 5:33 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > To me, what is most Marxist about Bronfenbrenner is his recognition that > > the most important ecosystem in the development of the child is one that > > the child never even lays eyes on: what Daddy (and more rarely Mommy) > have > > to do for a living. This was a very unpopular thing to say, and it still > > is, because it is not only Marxist but Durkheimian: it implies that the > > social and the interpersonal really are two qualitatively different > levels > > of being requiring two qualitatively different kinds of analysis > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Mar 12 12:42:09 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:42:09 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: Peter Villmann would like a copy of "Situating Teacher Practice" In-Reply-To: References: <0100015367e5ac92-3d2dc523-197b-48f1-b49e-5235ab535349-000000@email.amazonses.com> <499CFD57-6776-40E3-8B99-4D7EBD4940F1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Peter: Anton Yasnitsky? And, in the field of foreign language educaiton, Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin? David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > Colleagues, I got this request today. If you know of anyone who meets this > profile, please contact villmannpeter@gmail.com villmannpeter@gmail.com> and no need to copy me. > > From: Peter Villmann [mailto:villmannpeter@gmail.com] > > I was also wanted to know if you had any connection with Profs. at U of T > in Toronto that specialized in Vygotsky that you could refer me to. > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sat Mar 12 13:55:39 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:55:39 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Two worlds, Urie Bronfenbrenner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ulvi, Thanks very much for that opening quote on UB's suggestion for another way to judge the worth of a society. The tricky thing here is that I suspect, and this may have been precisely the reason why UB didn't get snatched up in the red scare days, that Americans would see their (our) society in this description. Most American parents would insist that the ridiculous effort that they put into getting their kids into the top colleges/grad schools and, eventually, jobs is evidence of how concerned we are for our children. I also suspect that this wasn't what UB had in mind. Perhaps UB has a few more words that put a little more teeth to this critique of American society? -greg On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > I thought the same, that is, this is really very courageous to write on > Soviet experience like this, with these results of USSR, in US. He first > visited USSR in 1960, then 6 times until 1967. I intend to focus on the > background of UB's courageous effort and highly appreciate any piece of > information and comment. > > What Two Worlds made me think again is that, Soviets, despite many defects, > did not deserve to be dissolved like this. > > Have a look at this: "How CAN WE judge the worth of a society? On what > basis can we predict bow well a nation will sun'ive and prosper? Many > indices could be used for this purpose, among them the Gross National > Product, the birth rate, crime statistics, mental health data, etc. In this > bock we propose yet another criterion: the concern of one generation for > the next, If the children and youth of a nation are afforded opportunity to > develop their capacities to the fullest, if they are given the knowledge to > understand the world and the wisdom to change it, then the prospects for > the future are bright. In contrast, a society which neglects its children, > however well it may function in other respects, risks eventual > disorganization and demise". (Two worlds, p.1) > > This is ruthless criticism as Marx writes to Ruge (1843 September) and very > courageous indeed. > > This made me think that what was not to be demolished has been demolished > in 1990. And what was to be demolished, what was deserving and deserves > more and more every day, continues to live. Two worlds. > > I also think that Soviets' own defects and imperialist propaganda created > an immense ideological effect, of a character of dystopia, that humanity > will not be able to exit from this hell of capitalism, that it does not > deserve new revolutions given the result in USSR, in China. > > I am very much opposed to this pessimism. Such a pessimism can be valid for > "middle class" people, who can live with capitalism. > > But what about millions of proletarians? They need revolutions. This is I > believe materialism. > > Here once more we come to Lenin because we know very well that he always > thought of the emancipation of the proletariat, "real proletariat" I would > say. > > On the side, as to the intelellectuals, to the scientists. Can they close > their eyes that what was scientifically correct for humanity, for instance, > in terms of upbringing, was the one in USSR and continue to hang in, to > entertain with "science" detached from the humanity's burning needs. > > I think UB's effort deserves a great respect in this regard, that he did > not close his eyes to the reality which developed before his eyes and > appreciated the humanity's successful efforts on the other side of the > planet. > > Very exemplary indeed, for today too. > > Finally, he is exemplary also in terms of establishing a bridge to what is > not mainstream in, outside of capitalist academia. > > Ulvi > > > On 12 March 2016 at 00:33, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Ulvi: > > > > Bronfenbrenner was born in Moscow, just two weeks after Lenin returned to > > Russia and read the April Theses to the Bolshevik Party, preparing them > to > > take state power within six months. Historical coincidence? > > > > Of course it is. A more important fact about Bronfenbrenner's life is > that > > he had to make a career in American academia at the height of the > > McCarthyite purge. Which does make the papers that Jonathan pointed to > all > > the more remarkable and all the more courageous. True, they were not > > published until the sixties and seventies, but then they probably > COULDN'T > > have been published before then. > > > > To me, what is most Marxist about Bronfenbrenner is his recognition that > > the most important ecosystem in the development of the child is one that > > the child never even lays eyes on: what Daddy (and more rarely Mommy) > have > > to do for a living. This was a very unpopular thing to say, and it still > > is, because it is not only Marxist but Durkheimian: it implies that the > > social and the interpersonal really are two qualitatively different > levels > > of being requiring two qualitatively different kinds of analysis (part of > > the recent discussion on drama touched this point: the kind of freedom > > espoused by the Matusov/Marjanovic-Shane school of development is largely > > concerned with the interpersonal and not the social). > > > > But how do the social and the interpersonal get so thoroughly > > inter-connected by the time the child is an adolescent? In my country, it > > is depressingly straightforward: I remember how the "Head Start" > programmes > > which Bronfenbrenner (and Labov) worked indefatigably to create were > almost > > exclusively made up of kids from the other side of a chain-link fence > which > > ran right down the centre of Prospect Park in Minneapolis, separating the > > homes of the overwhelmingly white University of Minnesota professors and > > their kids (including me) from the overwhelmingly black housing project > > where we learnt, by sixth grade, not to play. > > > > What I am re-reading right now is the second volume of Ruqaiya Hasan's > > Collected Works, "Semantic Variation" (something she told me to read the > > last time I met her and I wanted to talk about her first volume). Ruqaiya > > insists throughout that we distinguish between the "material situational > > setting" of talk (the sort of thing that shows up on the child's purely > > visio-graphic analysis of context) and the semantic context (the sort of > > things which are selected as worthy of processing into language). It's > not > > that the child has to imagine what Mommies and Daddies do for a living; > > it's that they have to imagine what kinds of things Mommy and Daddy > select > > as worth talking about. > > > > These semantic orientations are not the same for different classes of > > people, and Ruqaiya's (and Bronfennbrenner's) great insight and great > > courage lay in tirelessly telling us so. But for me, growing up, there > was > > a clear visographic clue which infallibly linked any potental friend to > > which side of the chain-link fence a potential friend played on, namely > > skin color. Tragically, I had mastered this clue by sixth grade. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Jonathan Tudge > wrote: > > > > > Dear Ulvi, > > > > > > Bronfenbrenner wrote a fair number of papers about Soviet child-rearing > > > practices in the 1960s, as well as papers describing the "mirror image" > > > (the way Americans see Russians and vice versa). > > > > > > Even more interesting, from my point of view, is the fact that he wrote > > in > > > the 1970s papers in which he argued that American child-rearing efforts > > > would be significantly improved by incorporating some aspects of Soviet > > > approaches. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Jonathan Tudge > > > > > > Professor > > > Office: 155 Stone > > > > > > http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/ > > > > > > Mailing address: > > > 248 Stone Building > > > Department of Human Development and Family Studies > > > PO Box 26170 > > > The University of North Carolina at Greensboro > > > Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 > > > USA > > > > > > phone (336) 223-6181 > > > fax (336) 334-5076 > > > > > > http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/Tudge.html > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Ulvi ??il > wrote: > > > > > > > I am reading this wonderful work of Bronfenbrenner, it is my second, > > > deeper > > > > reading just after the first. > > > > > > > > As far as I know he did not have any particular political inclination > > > > towards Soviet Union, Marxism etc. > > > > > > > > But it is interesting that the Part I of his book (and it seems this > is > > > his > > > > first book) > > > > is selected to have the title of "The making of the new soviet man". > > > > > > > > I highly appreciate if any other such cross-cultural including Soviet > > (or > > > > solely on Soviet child upbringing) is proposed. > > > > > > > > Ulvi > > > > > > > > > > -- 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 Sat Mar 12 19:26:09 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 19:26:09 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Two worlds, Urie Bronfenbrenner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56e4ddfc.0994420a.d3d97.69e0@mx.google.com> David, I will follow you into the felt sense of this *power of social being* which has the ability to swamp our fragile felt sense of interpersonal/dialogical relations. Development as the process in which these fragile dialogical senses can be overcome/swamped despite our best *intentions*. I wonder if you or others might comment on how Herbert Marcuse may have responded to the fragility of these dialogical interpersonal relations when facing into this *power of being social* [HM] - The aesthetic liberation of the rational and sensible faculties [at present repressed] will have to begin with individuals and small groups, trying, as it were, such an experiment in unalienated living. How it then gradually becomes effective in terms of the society at large and makes for a different construction of social relationships in general, we cannot say. Such premature programming could only lead to yet another example of ideological tyranny. I fully realize that these *small group experiments* will often fail, but this approach questions putting the focus on *mass* changes. This approach also recognizes the hubris of thinking we can deliberately transform an entire *mass*. [see also Raymond Williams on this topic] Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: David Kellogg Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 12:35 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Two worlds, Urie Bronfenbrenner Ulvi, Larry...and Martin (not necessarily in that order!) I have some wonderful data from an ex-grad student (back in my professorial days). It is shortly after the terrible Sewol disaster, when a whole boatload of young working class high school students were drowned like rats thanks to the malign neglect of the captain, the crew, but above all the unregulated ferry company and the unregulating government. The teacher's trying to get the kids to remember and WRITE one of my cute little Bowdlerizations of Shakespeare's Hamlet. She's told them about the death of Ophelia, and now they are going to learn about it from the mouth of Hamlet's mother Gertrude and through the eyes and ears of Ophelia's brother Laertes. : Gertrude: Your sister?s drowned, Laertes! Laertes: Drowned? Oh, where? Gertrude: Where? There. By the stream. Laertes: By the stream? When? Gertrude: When? Just now. She climbed a tree. Laertes: She climbed a tree? Why did she? Gertrude She went mad. Then she fell down. She fell in. And then she...drowned. Laertes: She has too much water now. No more tears. I want blood. We've divided the kids up into pairs, with one writing down Gertrude's lines and the other those of Laertes. The kids then try to reconstruct the scene using their lines. But in the event, this is what we get: Gertrude: Your sister drowned. Laertes: Drowned? Oh! Where? Gertrude: She drowned. Laertes: She drowned? When? Gertrude: She, now ,now. Laertes: I don?t like Hamlet. I want Hamlet?s kill. Gertrude: Maybe you kill Hamlet. I will kill you. Laertes: Oh! No! Now, I submit to Larry that this is creativity, or "being towards", but it is INVOLUNTARY creativity. The children are not being creative because like good little romantic poets they believe that the spark of the eternal is embodied in each individual creative breast, nor are they being creative because they want to grow up and be Shakespeare, Gertrude, or even Laertes. They are being creative because they would like to be totally uncreative and imitative and their memory isn't up to it. I submit to Martin that the interpersonal (that is, the dialogic, the improvisational) is totally linked to the social (that is, the monologic, in this case the memorizable) but it is just as true to say that they are totally distinct. What is above all true is that you cannot get from one to the other without a fight (a crisis). And, of course, I submit to Ulvi that that fight is "revolutionary" in every sense of the word (including the archaic sense of an "inward turning" which is the sense that Vygotsky uses). The child is trying to seize control of the means of development, that is, the wording, and the child finds to his chagrin that it is not so easy to be both the site of development and the source, that the means of development just gives you more meaning than you know what to do with. I think child development can be seen in this way. The revolutionary crises in development happen for the same reason they happen in world history: the power of being social beings simply overflows the interpersonal relations that we build to hold them in the same way that the power unleashed by social revolutions in Russia and China swamped the petty aspirations of the incompetent and unimaginative bureaucracies at the helm, and all they could do with that power is to sink the whole ship. David Kellogg Macquarie University (which ultimately cost me my job) On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Martin John Packer < mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: > I would have reached the opposite conclusion, David: that the social and > interpersonal are thoroughly interpenetrated. The interactions a child has > with her parents are profoundly shaped by the work that they are involved > in. The food she eats, for example, is what is made possible by the wages > the parents learn. The hours they are available to her at home depend on > the hours they need to dedicate to work. The child does not know this > explicitly, of course, but she is living the contradictions of social class > and the political economy of the society as a second nature, as though they > are a natural necessity. > > Martin > > > > > > On Mar 11, 2016, at 5:33 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > To me, what is most Marxist about Bronfenbrenner is his recognition that > > the most important ecosystem in the development of the child is one that > > the child never even lays eyes on: what Daddy (and more rarely Mommy) > have > > to do for a living. This was a very unpopular thing to say, and it still > > is, because it is not only Marxist but Durkheimian: it implies that the > > social and the interpersonal really are two qualitatively different > levels > > of being requiring two qualitatively different kinds of analysis > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Mar 13 09:01:46 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 09:01:46 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Using the grammar of [traces] in contrast to the grammar of [criteria] when exploring Chronotopes Message-ID: <56e58ee6.8c40620a.a0b2c.ffffd506@mx.google.com> I am reading an interesting article referring to Chronotopes that may extend the conversation on the topic of the *dialogical imagination*. The author is Calvin O Schrag who in 1988 gave a presentation that took place at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The conference was focusing on the theme ?Models of Meaning? in particular focusing on linguistics and semantic theory. Calvin?s intent in his presentation was to show how [meaning and reference] live and move about WITHIN a Bakhtinian chronotope of assimilated historical time and assimilated historical space. Calvin suggests that within this time/space chronotope we should shift from a grammar of criteria towards a grammar of traces. Here is his reason for this grammatical shift in terms. We speak of ?traces of? meaning and reference rather than of ?criteria for? meaning and reference. The grammar of criteria buys into a morphology of static structures and pregiven conditions that occlude the dynamic functioning of the trace in its spatial and temporal inscriptions. Criteria are theory based and front loaded. They are installed prior to the adventure of meaning disclosure. Traces are affiliates of praxis, resident WITHIN the space of the discourses and actions of the concrete lifeworld, always contextualized within the configurations of *sense* that inform our intertextured speaking and acting. They configure a presignitive and prepredicative intentionality that antedates any objectivating theoretical act-intentionality. It is of primal importance to realize the grammar of trace as testifying of an entwinement of temporality and spatiality WITHIN the texture that binds meaning and reference. It is in THIS *sense* that Calvin then pivots [being-towards] to Bakhtin?s notion of chronotope. If others are interested I can add more on the relation of the grammar of *traces of* configured with the notion of chronotope but I will pause here to stay focused on the difference with the grammar of ?criteria for?. A difference that may make a significant difference to our exploration of *sense* *meaning* and *reference* within historically lived space and time. Larry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Mar 15 15:56:53 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:56:53 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Faculty position: School of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand In-Reply-To: <03B81443-D2EC-4DB0-9D54-128E83EB8D55@auckland.ac.nz> References: <03B81443-D2EC-4DB0-9D54-128E83EB8D55@auckland.ac.nz> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Annette Henderson Date: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:54 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Faculty position: School of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand To: "cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org" Dear Colleagues, I am excited to inform you that Developmental Psychology is a priority area for hiring for at least one of two new positions in the School of Psychology at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. You can view the posting below or through the following link: https://www.opportunities.auckland.ac.nz/psp/ps/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_JOB_DTL&Action=A&JobOpeningId=17940&SiteId=1&PostingSeq=1 Just a few things about this position in case you aren?t familiar with the NZ system: 1. Lecturer/Senior Lecturer is the equivalent to the Assistant Professor and early Associate Professor levels in the North American system. 2. This position is also equivalent to the tenure-track positions. Although there is no tenure-track per se in NZ, successful candidates would apply for ?continuation? in 3-4 years after hiring (similar to the tenure process). If potential candidates have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards, Annette ----------------------- *Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - School of Psychology* Job ID: 17940 Campus: Auckland City Campus Full/Part Time: Full-Time Permanent/Fixed Term: Permanent *Faculty of Science* The Faculty of Science at the University of Auckland is the largest and most highly ranked science faculty in New Zealand. The Faculty of Science is ranked among the top 90 science faculties worldwide by the QS World University Rankings . The 10 departments and schools that form the Faculty of Science represent the breadth and diversity of science in our modern world. Auckland?s harbour setting, magnificent beaches and verdant bush make it a great place to study and work, while the University?s close proximity to New Zealand?s major businesses and hospitals enables staff and students to rub shoulders with leading practitioners in their field. Auckland offers a diverse range of employment and leisure options, including easy access to high quality schools which prepare students extremely well for the transition to university. *School of Psychology* The School of Psychology is the largest in New Zealand and has international research leaders across a wide range of research fields, including cognitive neuroscience and social, clinical, developmental, behavioural, and evolutionary psychology. We have professional postgraduate programmes in clinical psychology, applied behaviour analysis, and speech science. The School has extensive research space and a significant investment in research infrastructure. Later this year we will move into a new building with state-of-the-art facilities. To learn more, please visit our School . We seek applications for two positions at the Lecturer/Senior Lecturer level in the School of Psychology. We welcome applications from all areas of Psychology and are seeking applicants who can help us develop areas of strength within the school. We are particularly interested in applicants who fall within one or more of the following areas: Behaviour/Learning, Developmental Psychology, Indigenous/Pacific Psychologies, Health Psychology, Organisational Psychology, Statistical Methods. All applicants, whether in one of these areas or in any other, will need to demonstrate a capacity for achieving research excellence and for contributing to the development of research and teaching programmes within the School. For more information and queries *only,* please contact Prof Will Hayward, Head of School,w.hayward@auckland.ac.nz. *The University has an equity policy and welcomes applications from all qualified persons.* *The University is committed to meeting its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and achieving equity outcomes for staff and students.* *How to apply* All applications will be received on-line and may be submitted up to end of business on the closing date. In order to apply you will first need to register with us by completing an on-line user profile and then clicking on the 'Apply Now' button for each job in which you have a particular interest. Please combine your cover letter and CV as one document when submitting your application. To successfully download the full Job Description you should ensure you have pop-up blocker disabled and file downloads enabled (in Internet Explorer enabling file downloads is done by navigating to Tools > Internet Options > Security > Custom Level and select radio button to enable File Downloads). If you experience difficulty in any aspect of the application process or do not receive a confirmation email that you have applied for a role please contact recruitment@auckland.ac.nz or DDI 64 9 923 1115. Applications close: Wednesday, 20 April 2016 _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Mar 17 12:51:59 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:51:59 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Apply now for the 2016 Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An opportunity for someone on the list perhaps? Mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *SRCD* Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 Subject: Apply now for the 2016 Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant To: Michael Cole Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser . [image: Society for Research in Child Development - eNewsletter] Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant March 2016 *2016 Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant* *For Global Early Child Development* [image: Patrice L. Engle]The Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant provides support for students interested in a career in global early child development who are from or doing research in low- or middle-income countries. The Grant includes US $5,000 to support dissertation research and a 2-year student membership to SRCD. For details and application procedures, please see click [here ]. Please click [here ] for a list of the 2015 winners of this grant. *The 2016 deadline for the application is April 30th, 2016. Applications must *be sent via email to: Patrice.Engle.Grant@SRCD.ORG . Applicants will be notified of decisions by June 30, 2016. *Questions can be directed to: Patrice.Engle.Grant@SRCD.ORG . The Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant was established by generous donations from the Bernard van Leer Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, and Pat's family and friends. To inquire about making a donation, please contact: Patrice.Engle.Grant@SRCD.ORG .* [image: Quick Links] > Membership > Publications > 2016 Special Topic Meetings Questions Phone: (734) 926-0600 Email: info@srcd.org www.srcd.org | Copyright (C) 2012 SRCD All rights reserved. Unsubscribe from this list. | Update your profile 2950 S. State Street, Suite 401, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | (734) 926-0600 -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Mar 17 18:39:31 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:39:31 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion Message-ID: Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before this part of the discussion could take place. Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our different interests. In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing communication. get your copy at http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be interested. Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Mar 18 09:04:10 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:04:10 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Signing up for XMCA Message-ID: Bruce Jones just sent a note saying that the signup for XMCA is now http://lchc-resources.org/xmca/signup.php . Apologies for sending misinformation. mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Mar 18 13:57:35 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 07:57:35 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?b?SGVscCBXaXRoIFJ1c3NpYW46INGE0L7QvQ==?= Message-ID: I have a problem--a homophone in Russian. The word "phone" can mean two things: a) "phone": that is, the actual sound that we hear in speech, such as the /b/ in "big". b) "field": that is, the POTENTIAL sounds that form the BACKGROUND of identifying a particular sound, such as the /p/ we do NOT hear when we hear "big" rather than "pig". Here's what Vygotsky says (this is the Russian Collected Works, volume 4, p. 354, also English Collected Works, volume 5, p. 271). ???????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????, ???? ???????, ??? ??? ?????????? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ????, ?? ?? ???? ???????? ???????????? ?????, ? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??????, ?????, ??????? ?????? ??????????. ????????? ???????? ???? ???????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ??? ?? ????????, ??????? ???? ? ??? ????????????. ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????, ????????? ? ??????????? ?????????, ?. ?. ?????????? ???? ??????????. And here's the problem. I this goes something like: "In characterizing the development of oral speech in the child, it's necessary to point out that it takes place not according to the type of written speech (that is--all of a sudden, with the child acquiring the writing system and being able to write anything he hears--DK) nor according to the type of studying foreign languages (that is--word by word by word, with the child having to learn each word and each wording in a new context--DK) but, as it were, at a midpoint in the continuum between these two types, a line which can now be thus construed. Thanks to the fact that he hears adult speech, the child disposes of a very much broader range of background/phones (???--DK) of speech than the "figures" which he had at his disposal. As soon as one phoneme emerges with its phone/background (???--DK) analogous structures also emerge, i.e. perception goes on structurally." So--two questions about this: a) Is it REALLY legitimate to translate ??? as BOTH the figure AND the background? It does seem to me that "phone" is figure when we consider the act of perception, but it is background when we consider the act of generalization, sort of like today's weather, which is figure when we consider the act of perception but background when we think of tomorrow and tomorrow. b) It's not THAT clear why this locates oral speech midway between written speech on the one hand and foreign language speech on the other. I gather than Vygotsky is arguing that the child doesn't acquire the whole system instantaneously (the way that Korean children acquire the Korean writing system, which is so regular that it can easily be learnt in three hours or three days and then applied to almost anything they hear) because the child doesn't yet know all the words but on the other hand the child's experience of speech is much broader than the child's experience of proto-speech was during infancy making generalization possible. Am I reading too much into this? David Kellogg Macquarie University From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Mar 18 21:11:15 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 21:11:15 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?SGVscCBXaXRoIFJ1c3NpYW46INGE0L7QvQ==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56ecd15b.c228620a.8b7fe.ffff8565@mx.google.com> David, I cannot give an answer to your specific question, but I hear a more general question in the *background*. If the *phone* is *figure* then can it also be considered *background*. Is this an either/or question or is the dynamic of *focus* and *attention to* [perception and action] [intentional and unintentional] a continually open question. This seems to be a general question of *form* or *gestalt* [and Merleau-Ponty also used the term *structure*] Merleau-Ponty suggests that whether a form is considered figure or background is an open fluid dynamic relational process depending on the particular situation emerging or unfolding. What was figure may become background and what was background may become figure. This also can bring in the relation of *between* and *within* as fluid boundary markings or gestalt forms. This returns to the ongoing topic and theme of the place of gestalt psychology in both Vygotsky?s and Merleau-Ponty?s projects. An ongoing conversation. This months article is exploring intersubjectivity and *joint action* However is joint action conscious action or nonconscious action. Is this an either/or relation? Or is this another fluid gestalt where what was nonconscious becomes conscious within particular situations. *Forms* can also be thought of as *figures* & *configurations* as another gestalt relationship. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: David Kellogg Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 1:59 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Help With Russian: ??? - I have a problem--a homophone in Russian. The word "phone" can mean two things: a) "phone": that is, the actual sound that we hear in speech, such as the /b/ in "big". b) "field": that is, the POTENTIAL sounds that form the BACKGROUND of identifying a particular sound, such as the /p/ we do NOT hear when we hear "big" rather than "pig". Here's what Vygotsky says (this is the Russian Collected Works, volume 4, p. 354, also English Collected Works, volume 5, p. 271). ???????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????, ???? ???????, ??? ??? ?????????? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ????, ?? ?? ???? ???????? ???????????? ?????, ? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??????, ?????, ??????? ?????? ??????????. ????????? ???????? ???? ???????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ??? ?? ????????, ??????? ???? ? ??? ????????????. ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????, ????????? ? ??????????? ?????????, ?. ?. ?????????? ???? ??????????. And here's the problem. I this goes something like: "In characterizing the development of oral speech in the child, it's necessary to point out that it takes place not according to the type of written speech (that is--all of a sudden, with the child acquiring the writing system and being able to write anything he hears--DK) nor according to the type of studying foreign languages (that is--word by word by word, with the child having to learn each word and each wording in a new context--DK) but, as it were, at a midpoint in the continuum between these two types, a line which can now be thus construed. Thanks to the fact that he hears adult speech, the child disposes of a very much broader range of background/phones (???--DK) of speech than the "figures" which he had at his disposal. As soon as one phoneme emerges with its phone/background (???--DK) analogous structures also emerge, i.e. perception goes on structurally." So--two questions about this: a) Is it REALLY legitimate to translate ??? as BOTH the figure AND the background? It does seem to me that "phone" is figure when we consider the act of perception, but it is background when we consider the act of generalization, sort of like today's weather, which is figure when we consider the act of perception but background when we think of tomorrow and tomorrow. b) It's not THAT clear why this locates oral speech midway between written speech on the one hand and foreign language speech on the other. I gather than Vygotsky is arguing that the child doesn't acquire the whole system instantaneously (the way that Korean children acquire the Korean writing system, which is so regular that it can easily be learnt in three hours or three days and then applied to almost anything they hear) because the child doesn't yet know all the words but on the other hand the child's experience of speech is much broader than the child's experience of proto-speech was during infancy making generalization possible. Am I reading too much into this? David Kellogg Macquarie University From dkirsh@lsu.edu Fri Mar 18 22:32:57 2016 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 05:32:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?windows-1251?q?Help_With_Russian=3A_=F4=EE=ED?= In-Reply-To: <56ecd15b.c228620a.8b7fe.ffff8565@mx.google.com> References: , <56ecd15b.c228620a.8b7fe.ffff8565@mx.google.com> Message-ID: A Meta-comment: My impression, from the outside, Larry, is that not only is "figure or background ... an open fluid dynamic relational process," but the theoretical framings within which these matters are considered also are fluid and changeable, to the point that one can't really know if the claims one makes are claims about the phenomena in question or simply implicated in one's discursive structure. One hopes that the philosophical framings are sufficiently firm and stable so that one can keep track, but the sad irony is that philosophic erudition serves just as often to complexify as to simplify. David ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of lpscholar2@gmail.com Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 11:11 PM To: David Kellogg; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help With Russian: ??? David, I cannot give an answer to your specific question, but I hear a more general question in the *background*. If the *phone* is *figure* then can it also be considered *background*. Is this an either/or question or is the dynamic of *focus* and *attention to* [perception and action] [intentional and unintentional] a continually open question. This seems to be a general question of *form* or *gestalt* [and Merleau-Ponty also used the term *structure*] Merleau-Ponty suggests that whether a form is considered figure or background is an open fluid dynamic relational process depending on the particular situation emerging or unfolding. What was figure may become background and what was background may become figure. This also can bring in the relation of *between* and *within* as fluid boundary markings or gestalt forms. This returns to the ongoing topic and theme of the place of gestalt psychology in both Vygotsky?s and Merleau-Ponty?s projects. An ongoing conversation. This months article is exploring intersubjectivity and *joint action* However is joint action conscious action or nonconscious action. Is this an either/or relation? Or is this another fluid gestalt where what was nonconscious becomes conscious within particular situations. *Forms* can also be thought of as *figures* & *configurations* as another gestalt relationship. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: David Kellogg Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 1:59 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Help With Russian: ??? - I have a problem--a homophone in Russian. The word "phone" can mean two things: a) "phone": that is, the actual sound that we hear in speech, such as the /b/ in "big". b) "field": that is, the POTENTIAL sounds that form the BACKGROUND of identifying a particular sound, such as the /p/ we do NOT hear when we hear "big" rather than "pig". Here's what Vygotsky says (this is the Russian Collected Works, volume 4, p. 354, also English Collected Works, volume 5, p. 271). ???????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????, ???? ???????, ??? ??? ?????????? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ????, ?? ?? ???? ???????? ???????????? ?????, ? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??????, ?????, ??????? ?????? ??????????. ????????? ???????? ???? ???????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ??? ?? ????????, ??????? ???? ? ??? ????????????. ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????, ????????? ? ??????????? ?????????, ?. ?. ?????????? ???? ??????????. And here's the problem. I this goes something like: "In characterizing the development of oral speech in the child, it's necessary to point out that it takes place not according to the type of written speech (that is--all of a sudden, with the child acquiring the writing system and being able to write anything he hears--DK) nor according to the type of studying foreign languages (that is--word by word by word, with the child having to learn each word and each wording in a new context--DK) but, as it were, at a midpoint in the continuum between these two types, a line which can now be thus construed. Thanks to the fact that he hears adult speech, the child disposes of a very much broader range of background/phones (???--DK) of speech than the "figures" which he had at his disposal. As soon as one phoneme emerges with its phone/background (???--DK) analogous structures also emerge, i.e. perception goes on structurally." So--two questions about this: a) Is it REALLY legitimate to translate ??? as BOTH the figure AND the background? It does seem to me that "phone" is figure when we consider the act of perception, but it is background when we consider the act of generalization, sort of like today's weather, which is figure when we consider the act of perception but background when we think of tomorrow and tomorrow. b) It's not THAT clear why this locates oral speech midway between written speech on the one hand and foreign language speech on the other. I gather than Vygotsky is arguing that the child doesn't acquire the whole system instantaneously (the way that Korean children acquire the Korean writing system, which is so regular that it can easily be learnt in three hours or three days and then applied to almost anything they hear) because the child doesn't yet know all the words but on the other hand the child's experience of speech is much broader than the child's experience of proto-speech was during infancy making generalization possible. Am I reading too much into this? David Kellogg Macquarie University From ewall@umich.edu Sat Mar 19 08:18:22 2016 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:18:22 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?SGVscCBXaXRoIFJ1c3NpYW46INGE0L7QvQ==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There visual instances where, one could say, the background completes the foreground. Ed > On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:57 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > I have a problem--a homophone in Russian. The word "phone" can mean two > things: > > a) "phone": that is, the actual sound that we hear in speech, such as the > /b/ in "big". > > b) "field": that is, the POTENTIAL sounds that form the BACKGROUND of > identifying a particular sound, such as the /p/ we do NOT hear when we hear > "big" rather than "pig". > > Here's what Vygotsky says (this is the Russian Collected Works, volume 4, > p. 354, also English Collected Works, volume 5, p. 271). > > ???????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????, ???? ???????, ??? ??? ?????????? > ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ????, ?? ?? ???? ???????? ???????????? ?????, ? ??? > ?? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??????, ?????, ??????? ?????? > ??????????. ????????? ???????? ???? ???????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? > ???????? ??? ????, ??? ?? ????????, ??????? ???? ? ??? ????????????. ??? > ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????, ????????? ? ??????????? ?????????, > ?. ?. ?????????? ???? ??????????. > > And here's the problem. I this goes something like: > > "In characterizing the development of oral speech in the child, it's > necessary to point out that it takes place not according to the type of > written speech (that is--all of a sudden, with the child acquiring the > writing system and being able to write anything he hears--DK) nor according > to the type of studying foreign languages (that is--word by word by word, > with the child having to learn each word and each wording in a new > context--DK) but, as it were, at a midpoint in the continuum between these > two types, a line which can now be thus construed. Thanks to the fact that > he hears adult speech, the child disposes of a very much broader range > of background/phones (???--DK) of speech than the "figures" which he had at > his disposal. As soon as one phoneme emerges with its phone/background > (???--DK) analogous structures also emerge, i.e. perception goes on > structurally." > > So--two questions about this: > > a) Is it REALLY legitimate to translate ??? as BOTH the figure AND the > background? It does seem to me that "phone" is figure when we consider the > act of perception, but it is background when we consider the act of > generalization, sort of like today's weather, which is figure when we > consider the act of perception but background when we think of tomorrow and > tomorrow. > > b) It's not THAT clear why this locates oral speech midway between written > speech on the one hand and foreign language speech on the other. I gather > than Vygotsky is arguing that the child doesn't acquire the whole system > instantaneously (the way that Korean children acquire the Korean writing > system, which is so regular that it can easily be learnt in three hours or > three days and then applied to almost anything they hear) because the child > doesn't yet know all the words but on the other hand the child's experience > of speech is much broader than the child's experience of proto-speech was > during infancy making generalization possible. Am I reading too much into > this? > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Sat Mar 19 09:17:33 2016 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 16:17:33 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community to cultural community psychology. As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT literature had influenced the development of community psychology itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them in part because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other direction. Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a very brief first contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. Thanks, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before this part of the discussion could take place. Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our different interests. In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing communication. get your copy at http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be interested. Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From cliffo@hawaii.edu Sat Mar 19 18:28:23 2016 From: cliffo@hawaii.edu (Cliff O'Donnell) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 15:28:23 -1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency of common citations). As described in our article, we and several of our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with Greenfield. Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would be interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite direction. You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for change. I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, psycho- neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the process. Cliff On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other > papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely > describing the field, and how it evolved from community to cultural > community psychology. > > As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > literature had influenced the development of community psychology > itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found > clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of > the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important > input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then I > wondered on what had been other sources. What were other > foundational influences to the field? I'd be interested to know > about them in part because, while the paper discusses many examples > in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about the > (possible) inputs in the other direction. > > Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality > in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions > to research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your > paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a move forward towards > integration. In the case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of > developing a scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism > and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a very brief > first contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial > systems. This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is > a central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to those > more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. > > Thanks, > Alfredo > > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > > We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by Roland > Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. Roland > wanted > to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as people with a > strong > family resemblance. He passed away before this part of the > discussion could > take place. > > > > Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community > Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred > to > often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym for > cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a tradition > of > chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our different > interests. > > > > In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > invitation to > people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be celebratory of > Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing communication. > > > > get your copy at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > > Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > interested. > Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > > mike > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27) University of Hawai?i Department of Psychology 2530 Dole Street Honolulu, HI 96822 From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Mar 19 23:46:41 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 17:46:41 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: Sometimes I do find myself frustrated by interdisciplinary efforts to bring one academic enterprise into conversation with another, because I find that disciplinary terms that I know and love have lost the meanings which made them ginger and garlic to me. One example: "context". The word "context" is used fifteen times, usually as "social context" or "cultural context" or "context of activity". The word "text" is used only once, as part of the compound word "textbook", and the word "context" is nowhere to be found in the context. As a linguist, I find it very hard to imagine a context without a text. Is "context" here just a metaphor for setting, or are we literally supposed to think of "activity" as a kind of text? Does "context" mean the material setting, or does it mean the only those elements of the material setting which have been selected for semiotic coding, as it does for linguists? David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought that > although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in each > appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency of common > citations). As described in our article, we and several of our colleagues > have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT concepts in our research > and intervention programs. As for influence in the opposite direction, > perhaps the KEEP project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's > work with Greenfield. Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and > CHAT. I too would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > opposite direction. > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with > Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a > universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for change. > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology of > interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the > commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that commonality with > developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. Hopefully this > discussion format will facilitate interest in the process. > > Cliff > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not >> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other papers in >> the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely describing the >> field, and how it evolved from community to cultural community psychology. >> >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT literature >> had influenced the development of community psychology itself from the >> start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found clear references to >> these influences, which even meant the delay of the publishing of Roland's >> work, I assume, due to the important input that Vygotsky's publications >> meant for the project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. >> What were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be interested to >> know about them in part because, while the paper discusses many examples in >> which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about the >> (possible) inputs in the other direction. >> >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality in >> psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions to >> research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta >> theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In the case of >> CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based >> on dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I >> just had a very brief first contact) seems to build upon the notion of >> psychosocial systems. This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who >> surely is a central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to those more >> familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. >> >> Thanks, >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of mike cole >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion >> >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- >> >> >> >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by Roland >> Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. Roland >> wanted >> to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as people with a >> strong >> family resemblance. He passed away before this part of the discussion >> could >> take place. >> >> >> >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community >> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred to >> often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym for >> cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a tradition of >> chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our different >> interests. >> >> >> >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an invitation to >> people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be celebratory of >> Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing communication. >> >> >> >> get your copy at >> >> >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current >> >> >> >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be interested. >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! >> >> >> >> mike >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object >> that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > Professor Emeritus > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27) > > University of Hawai?i > Department of Psychology > 2530 Dole Street > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > From ablunden@mira.net Sun Mar 20 03:34:10 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 21:34:10 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of human life. But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared activity and the law of genetic development. I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already assimilated. Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of having a "center of commonality." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I > thought that although CC and CHAT have many common > interests, most folks in each appeared to be unaware of > the other (judging by the infrequency of common > citations). As described in our article, we and several of > our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used > CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the > KEEP project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of > Maynard's work with Greenfield. Also Kurt Lewin is a > source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would be > interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite > direction. > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial > systems with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory > boldly attempts to be a universal theory of how change > occurs using Delta as the symbol for change. > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive > science, psycho-neurology, and a potential center of > commonality in psychology of interest! That is the goal of > the article, i.e., to show how the commonality of CC and > CHAT have the potential to form that commonality with > developmental, educational, cognitive, and > neuro-psychology. Hopefully this discussion format will > facilitate interest in the process. > > Cliff > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting >> article. I was not familiar to cultural community >> psychology and this and the other papers in the symposium >> do a great job introducing and concisely describing the >> field, and how it evolved from community to cultural >> community psychology. >> >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of >> CHAT literature had influenced the development of >> community psychology itself from the start. As I >> progressed in my reading, I then found clear references >> to these influences, which even meant the delay of the >> publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the >> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for >> the project. But then I wondered on what had been other >> sources. What were other foundational influences to the >> field? I'd be interested to know about them in part >> because, while the paper discusses many examples in which >> CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about >> the (possible) inputs in the other direction. >> >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, >> however brief, mentions to research in cognitive science >> and psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is >> mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In the >> case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a >> scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism >> and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a >> very brief first contact) seems to build upon the notion >> of psychosocial systems. This sounds very much in line >> with Vygotsky, who surely is a central source. Again, >> here I would love to hear what other insights/sources are >> involved that may provide new insights to those more >> familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. >> >> Thanks, >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of mike cole >> >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion >> >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- >> >> >> >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the >> paper by Roland >> Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of >> MCA. Roland wanted >> to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as >> people with a strong >> family resemblance. He passed away before this part of >> the discussion could >> take place. >> >> >> >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of >> Cultural Community >> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the >> approach referred to >> often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an >> acronym for >> cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have >> a tradition of >> chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our >> different interests. >> >> >> >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and >> an invitation to >> people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be >> celebratory of >> Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing >> communication. >> >> >> >> get your copy at >> >> >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current >> >> >> >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think >> might be interested. >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! >> >> >> >> mike >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural >> science with an object >> that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > Professor Emeritus > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action > (APA Division 27) > > University of Hawai?i > Department of Psychology > 2530 Dole Street > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Sun Mar 20 04:14:35 2016 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:14:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> Message-ID: I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a family is of a different order to that available between otherwise unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from above' rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' - to understand something is to stand IN it). We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of philosophical thought-play. So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of human life. But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared activity and the law of genetic development. I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already assimilated. Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of having a "center of commonality." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in > each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency > of common citations). As described in our article, we and several of > our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT > concepts in our research and intervention programs. > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP project, > Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with Greenfield. > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would be > interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite direction. > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with > Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a > universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for > change. > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology > of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the > commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that commonality > with developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > process. > > Cliff > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not >> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other >> papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely >> describing the field, and how it evolved from community to cultural >> community psychology. >> >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found >> clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of >> the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important input >> that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then I >> wondered on what had been other sources. What were other foundational >> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them in part >> because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT gives >> input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) inputs in >> the other direction. >> >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality >> in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions >> to research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, >> Delta theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In >> the case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a >> scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism and the >> sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a very brief first >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. This >> sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a central >> source. Again, here I would love to hear what other insights/sources >> are involved that may provide new insights to those more familiar to >> CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. >> >> Thanks, >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of mike cole >> >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion >> >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- >> >> >> >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as >> people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before this >> part of the discussion could take place. >> >> >> >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community >> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred >> to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym >> for cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a >> tradition of chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our >> different interests. >> >> >> >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be >> celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing >> communication. >> >> >> >> get your copy at >> >> >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current >> >> >> >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be >> interested. >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! >> >> >> >> mike >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > Professor Emeritus > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > Division 27) > > University of Hawai'i > Department of Psychology > 2530 Dole Street > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > ________________________________ [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 Sun Mar 20 08:05:16 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 08:05:16 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> Message-ID: <56eebc6b.079f420a.92238.fffff786@mx.google.com> David, Andy, Rod, Three responses exploring (texts) (concepts) and (understanding) all AS inter (esse). Mike often (calls) as back to the aphorism *in the beginning was the word* and this may be contrasted with *in the beginning was the deed*. I want to add to the exploration of (under) and (inter) sharing a common root or source or beginning. I recognize a difference in the sense of *to name* and *to call*. To name the word is a different *way* to travel with others than to call the word. To say I name this word I call this word We name this word We call this word All four different ways of travelling. We could be moving *between* or we could be moving *within* which are different *ways* of moving, orienting, approaching phenomena as experiences. To return to what the article is naming (or is the article calling) *joint action*. The article I sent by Knoblich explores the relation between primary joint action and joint action involving *belief* as derived from joint action. So what we name or call *belief* seems central to explore in our understanding (inter) phenomena as naming or calling into existence through words. How does wording (naming or calling) map onto (joint action) as involving (mirror neurons) which are central to knoblich's notion of (joint action). The article under (inter) discussion (which implies calling) is researching common *propositions* such as current inter/sections of (intersubjectivity) and (joint activity). The article opens by exploring the formation of (fields) as (community psychology) was born In 1967 a formal (form) called a field was organized and became crystallized as Division 27 of the APA. Journals soon followed. The *focus* of this (field) was understanding *behavior settings* *sense of community* and *ecology* It is this last term (eco/logy) that I believe indicates we may also be travelling with notions of (eikos) and (oikos). This will require another post but the terms (icosis) and (ecosis) are implicated in this calling phenomena. (icosis) relates to (persuading) (ecosis) refers to being Housed within or becoming housed. To perceive the forms (gestalts) of formation of (fields) may be this intimate relation of calling AS (hermeneutical as) a phenomena of persuading (icosis) within (not between) our becoming (housed). The aphorism In the beginning was the word AND the In the beginning was the deed is this moving or travelling of opinion when housed turning into belief. This *way* of understanding the form (gestalt) of formations as instituting (beliefs). This process intimately related to the formation of (joint action) as a way of ideomotor travelling AS a calling (not just a naming) Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Rod Parker-Rees" Sent: ?2016-?03-?20 4:15 AM To: "ablunden@mira.net" ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a family is of a different order to that available between otherwise unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from above' rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' - to understand something is to stand IN it). We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of philosophical thought-play. So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of human life. But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared activity and the law of genetic development. I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already assimilated. Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of having a "center of commonality." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in > each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency > of common citations). As described in our article, we and several of > our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT > concepts in our research and intervention programs. > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP project, > Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with Greenfield. > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would be > interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite direction. > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with > Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a > universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for > change. > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology > of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the > commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that commonality > with developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > process. > > Cliff > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not >> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other >> papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely >> describing the field, and how it evolved from community to cultural >> community psychology. >> >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found >> clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of >> the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important input >> that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then I >> wondered on what had been other sources. What were other foundational >> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them in part >> because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT gives >> input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) inputs in >> the other direction. >> >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality >> in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions >> to research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, >> Delta theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In >> the case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a >> scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism and the >> sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a very brief first >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. This >> sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a central >> source. Again, here I would love to hear what other insights/sources >> are involved that may provide new insights to those more familiar to >> CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. >> >> Thanks, >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of mike cole >> >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion >> >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- >> >> >> >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as >> people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before this >> part of the discussion could take place. >> >> >> >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community >> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred >> to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym >> for cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a >> tradition of chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our >> different interests. >> >> >> >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be >> celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing >> communication. >> >> >> >> get your copy at >> >> >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current >> >> >> >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be >> interested. >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! >> >> >> >> mike >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > Professor Emeritus > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > Division 27) > > University of Hawai'i > Department of Psychology > 2530 Dole Street > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > ________________________________ [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 Sun Mar 20 09:21:14 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 09:21:14 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> Message-ID: <56eece2b.d810620a.b5c0c.ffffc2cc@mx.google.com> A further extension carrying forward Rod?s in/sights. Where one is rooted in a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from above' rather than 'from within'. This relation as a phenomena of *marking* a boundary moving between *between* [abstracted concepts] and *within* [history of shared experiences]. This phenomena as a boundary marking may also be calling for our attention in Knoblich?s exploration of [joint action]. This marking of the boundary as a gestalt [form] between notions of *between* and *within*. I also want to high/light [illuminate] Rod?s notion of [layers] of understanding [intersubjectivity] When he says: I think we have to re/cognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of philosophical thought-play. This focus on *layers* of understanding [intersubjectivity]. Now I want to call forth a concept from Aristotle. What Aristotle calls [ta eikota] which can be translated AS [the plausabilities]. Aristotle perceives these plausabilities [ta eikota] as *organized* into and consolidated by the community [community psychology??] *through* [a travelling metaphor] the socioecological circulation of social *value* [time in Greek]. What is critical is that Aristotle understands this way of travelling AS *persuasivity* This is a hermeneutical *as* which is affect/becoming/cognition. Therefore icosis as a social ecology of persuasion AND ecosis as a social ecology of community con/form/ation are two different social ecologies. However these two social ecologies are inter/twined. Icosis orients towards *opinions* first presented AS *plausible* and then through travel becoming *true* as re/presented *facts* of the matter. Ecosis AS focusing on the collective presenting of norms of behaviour and attitudes. [in Aristotle?s case the attitudes AS good or just]. To the extent that both [icosis] and [ecosis] are *social ecologies* that *organize* social behaviour within habitualized ways that are *preconscious* and pre/cede human *agency*. Icosis and ecosis [related to eikos and oikos] can also travel together with [joint action] and cultural community psychology. They *organize* our *callings* [in contrast to namings of things] without our conscious intentional *doing*. The forming of *beliefs* and their/there relation to *mirror neurons* that are a relation central to Knoblich?s notion of [joint action] can travel intimately with notions of [ta eikota = plausabilities] which intertwine eikos and oikos. To become *within* is to become *housed*. The emphasis on inter/subjectivity as a notion of two subjectivities moving *between* is a marking of intersubjectivity with a different *sense* than inter/subjectivity as occurring *within* a place/house which can be called [as an invitation] the oikos realm. To explore *community* and *communication* is to travel both *between* and *within*. It is not an either/or relation. It is a gestalt *form* or *way* of moving. A sociocultural ecological circulation within our shared or mutual *calling* to *each* other. This is NOT an autonomy [an auto/nomos] or naming only. It is a freedom as *calling forth* within a house of becoming. This as *a way* forward that is not transcendental [positing a subjectivity FIRST] that then becomes inter/subjective [as a between form]. THIS is another *way* forward. A travelling *within* houses of becoming. This returns us to Rod?s focus on ?layering? and being *rooted* within shared history. A calling *us* to this *way* of orienting as a *within* phenomena . A particular *form* or gestalt travelling beyond *naming* towards orienting to *calling* when we say: ?In the beginning was the word* I am attempting to call forth other notions of *community* that we exist *within* as our shared or mutual history together. Larry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Rod Parker-Rees Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 4:15 AM To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a family is of a different order to that available between otherwise unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from above' rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' - to understand something is to stand IN it). We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of philosophical thought-play. So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of human life. But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared activity and the law of genetic development. I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already assimilated. Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of having a "center of commonality." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in > each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency > of common citations). As described in our article, we and several of > our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT > concepts in our research and intervention programs. > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP project, > Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with Greenfield. > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would be > interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite direction. > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with > Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a > universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for > change. > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology > of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the > commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that commonality > with developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > process. > > Cliff > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not >> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other >> papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely >> describing the field, and how it evolved from community to cultural >> community psychology. >> >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found >> clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of >> the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important input >> that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then I >> wondered on what had been other sources. What were other foundational >> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them in part >> because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT gives >> input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) inputs in >> the other direction. >> >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality >> in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions >> to research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, >> Delta theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In >> the case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a >> scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism and the >> sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a very brief first >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. This >> sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a central >> source. Again, here I would love to hear what other insights/sources >> are involved that may provide new insights to those more familiar to >> CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. >> >> Thanks, >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of mike cole >> >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion >> >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- >> >> >> >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as >> people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before this >> part of the discussion could take place. >> >> >> >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community >> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred >> to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym >> for cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a >> tradition of chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our >> different interests. >> >> >> >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be >> celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing >> communication. >> >> >> >> get your copy at >> >> >> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current >> >> >> >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be >> interested. >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! >> >> >> >> mike >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > Professor Emeritus > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > Division 27) > > University of Hawai'i > Department of Psychology > 2530 Dole Street > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > ________________________________ [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 Sun Mar 20 11:26:36 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:26:36 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Community Psychology Message-ID: Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC side of Roland and Cliff's article. There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a while ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and Intervention research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source of additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do professionally. Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. mike -- 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: Revisiting the Creating of Settings.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 792148 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160320/774da89a/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: communitypsych.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 246346 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160320/774da89a/attachment-0003.pdf From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Mar 20 11:48:30 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:48:30 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <56eef08d.d744620a.8b945.ffffce3d@mx.google.com> I read the article and was drawn to the concepts [activity setting] [intersubjectivity] and [joint action]. I decided to explore the meaning of the concept [joint action] as referenced to Gunther Knoblich. This is the article I located which helped to situate what this months article for discussion is referring to by the name [joint action]. This article is referencing cognitive psychology and psycho-neurology. Of particular interest is the way this article references James *ideomotor theory* and the way this theory has been extended into *common coding theory*[page 3]. This theory postulates that the same representations are involved in action production and action observation. On page 4 this paper suggests that for the effect of joint action to manifest requires only the *belief* that the other person will perform the other *part* of a joint task. The joint action does not require the direct observation of the other?s task performance. This paper?s understanding of this phenomena is that a task representation that *includes the potential* actions of others can be as effective in activating representations as the **observation* of somebody else?s actions. In other words the mirror neuron *functionality* is CONSTRAINED by a higher *form* or *gestalt* task representation that allows one to keep one?s own and the other?s *part* of the task *apart* without giving up the *basic mirror neuron* inter/subjective *link* provided by the functionality of the mirror neuron system. In other words the nonsymbolic and nonintentional *basic* or primary inter/subjective inter/action shares a basic inter/est [read as inter/esse] within a shared eco/logy as the primary *domain* or *field*. The other domain or field is the intentional sharing of symbolic signs between subjects. The question being explored as a shared inter/esse is this question: Can joint action [understood as the ability to re/present others? *potential* actions work in the SAME WAY [same form or gestalt] as one?s own actions. Can this joint action occur in the *absence* of perceptual evidence. I hope this article is helpful to others to situate the meaning of *joint action* as a concept central to this months article for discussion. The article helped me situate this central concept within an ideomotor background gestalt. Larry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 9:19 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community to cultural community psychology. As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT literature had influenced the development of community psychology itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them in part because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other direction. Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a very brief first contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. Thanks, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before this part of the discussion could take place. Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our different interests. In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing communication. get your copy at http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be interested. Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! mike -- 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: march 19 2016 knoblich gunther Joint Action Co_representation The Joint SNARC Effect.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 135309 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160320/7be7e44a/attachment.pdf From cliffo@hawaii.edu Sun Mar 20 11:55:34 2016 From: cliffo@hawaii.edu (Cliff O'Donnell) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 08:55:34 -1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with Roland. In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, and intersubjectivity. Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community psychology by its professional organization, the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): ?'to promote theory development and research that increases our understanding of human behavior in context?' (SCRA 2010 )." After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the definition as the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we noted "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a shared value, agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will always be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, and emotions. In addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in flux and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change over time (O?Donnell et al. 1993, p. 507)." Cliff -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AJCP Manuscript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 196188 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160320/6fff6d33/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: > Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC > side > of Roland and Cliff's article. > > There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a > while > ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. > Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and > Intervention > research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source > of > additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do > professionally. > > Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified > secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. > > mike > > -- > > 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 Mar 20 12:20:08 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 12:20:08 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: <56eef08d.d744620a.8b945.ffffce3d@mx.google.com> References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <56eef08d.d744620a.8b945.ffffce3d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: If we go down to the level of action, Larry, we run the danger of loosing contact with the fact that the problem of linking action and activity get lost, and with it links to the concept of community. Part of the frustration of such boundary crossing discussions that David was referring to, I expect. mike On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:48 AM, wrote: > I read the article and was drawn to the concepts [activity setting] > [intersubjectivity] and [joint action]. I decided to explore the meaning of > the concept [joint action] as referenced to Gunther Knoblich. This is the > article I located which helped to situate what this months article for > discussion is referring to by the name [joint action]. > This article is referencing cognitive psychology and psycho-neurology. > > Of particular interest is the way this article references James *ideomotor > theory* and the way this theory has been extended into *common coding > theory*[page 3]. This theory postulates that the same representations are > involved in action production and action observation. > > On page 4 this paper suggests that for the effect of joint action to > manifest requires only the *belief* that the other person will perform the > other *part* of a joint task. The joint action does not require the direct > observation of the other?s task performance. > > This paper?s understanding of this phenomena is that a task representation > that *includes the potential* actions of others can be as effective in > activating representations as the **observation* of somebody else?s actions. > > In other words the mirror neuron *functionality* is CONSTRAINED by a > higher *form* or *gestalt* task representation that allows one to keep > one?s own and the other?s *part* of the task *apart* without giving up the > *basic mirror neuron* inter/subjective *link* provided by the functionality > of the mirror neuron system. > > In other words the nonsymbolic and nonintentional *basic* or primary > inter/subjective inter/action shares a basic inter/est [read as > inter/esse] within a shared eco/logy as the primary *domain* or *field*. > > The other domain or field is the intentional sharing of symbolic signs > between subjects. > > The question being explored as a shared inter/esse is this question: > Can joint action [understood as the ability to re/present others? > *potential* actions work in the SAME WAY [same form or gestalt] as one?s > own actions. Can this joint action occur in the *absence* of perceptual > evidence. > I hope this article is helpful to others to situate the meaning of *joint > action* as a concept central to this months article for discussion. > The article helped me situate this central concept within an ideomotor > background gestalt. > Larry > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 9:19 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not > familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other papers in > the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely describing the > field, and how it evolved from community to cultural community psychology. > > As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT literature had > influenced the development of community psychology itself from the start. > As I progressed in my reading, I then found clear references to these > influences, which even meant the delay of the publishing of Roland's work, > I assume, due to the important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for > the project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What were > other foundational influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about > them in part because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT > gives input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) inputs in > the other direction. > > Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality in > psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions to > research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta > theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In the case of > CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based > on dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I > just had a very brief first contact) seems to build upon the notion of > psychosocial systems. This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who > surely is a central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to those more > familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. > > Thanks, > Alfredo > > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > > We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by Roland > Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. Roland wanted > to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as people with a strong > family resemblance. He passed away before this part of the discussion could > take place. > > > > Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community > Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred to > often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym for > cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a tradition of > chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our different > interests. > > > > In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an invitation to > people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be celebratory of > Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing communication. > > > > get your copy at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > > Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be interested. > Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > > mike > > -- > > 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 dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Mar 20 13:31:18 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 07:31:18 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> Message-ID: Rod: Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean speaking parent and one English speaking one): a) English: What's this? b) English: Is it a ...? c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the large person making so much noise might be thinking something along those lines too. So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for the second. I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do next?) David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context since my > own understanding of this term is in the context of trying to understand > how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by social and physical > contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to > separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' thought process apart > from the interactions in which it can occur. > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts have > their meanings is particularly relevant here. The intersubjectivity > available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a family is of a different > order to that available between otherwise unconnected speakers of the > 'same' language. Where one is rooted in a history of shared experiences in > common contexts the other is rooted in a history of more or less > abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from above' > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this is that > intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a conversation rather > than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is not an achieved end but a > means towards sharing understanding (I like the idea that the word > understanding is misunderstood - 'under' deriving from the same root as > 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' - to understand something > is to stand IN it). > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or watching > films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is importantly > different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting with them, can enrich > our personal understanding by exposing us to different ways of thinking but > I think we have to recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to > be understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing > of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > philosophical thought-play. > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > All the best, > > Rod > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch of us > has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of human life. > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can understand > each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has appropriated > zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared activity and the law > of genetic development. > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in the > early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as > 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I read in > your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in just > this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to > "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a > mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. Achieving > interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. But on > the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the larger > system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a > concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > assimilated. > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you were > using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning than I > would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors > feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I don't > even know it means to "feel values." > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be in > sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration (my > preferred term, rather than "joint > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they are > rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different > concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of > having a "center of commonality." > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in > > each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency > > of common citations). As described in our article, we and several of > > our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT > > concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP project, > > Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with Greenfield. > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would be > > interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite direction. > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with > > Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a > > universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for > > change. > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology > > of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the > > commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that commonality > > with developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > process. > > > > Cliff > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not > >> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other > >> papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely > >> describing the field, and how it evolved from community to cultural > >> community psychology. > >> > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found > >> clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of > >> the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important input > >> that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then I > >> wondered on what had been other sources. What were other foundational > >> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them in part > >> because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT gives > >> input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) inputs in > >> the other direction. > >> > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality > >> in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions > >> to research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, > >> Delta theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In > >> the case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a > >> scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism and the > >> sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a very brief first > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. This > >> sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a central > >> source. Again, here I would love to hear what other insights/sources > >> are involved that may provide new insights to those more familiar to > >> CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Alfredo > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> on behalf of mike cole > >> > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > >> > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > >> > >> > >> > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as > >> people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before this > >> part of the discussion could take place. > >> > >> > >> > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community > >> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred > >> to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym > >> for cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a > >> tradition of chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our > >> different interests. > >> > >> > >> > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be > >> celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing > >> communication. > >> > >> > >> > >> get your copy at > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > >> > >> > >> > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > >> interested. > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > >> > >> > >> > >> mike > >> > >> -- > >> > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > Professor Emeritus > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > Division 27) > > > > University of Hawai'i > > Department of Psychology > > 2530 Dole Street > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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 Sun Mar 20 14:34:38 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 14:34:38 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> Message-ID: <56ef1766.6c42420a.ad4c.ffffea60@mx.google.com> David, I am slowly beginning to make some sense of where you are leading us in the way you are qualifying the meaning of con/text to that which particular phenomena that occurs as a particular kind of *activity* or *behavior*. It is NOT a general endorsement of activity or behavior. The particular quality forming this *text/context* is this process of *selection* that occurs within metaphorical ways of proceeding. You do NOT see how activity which is NOT semiotic activity [metaphorical selecting activity] and you do NOT see how behavior that is NOT semiotic behavior [metaphorical selecting behavior] can possibly create texts/contexts. You are inviting [or calling] us to limit our understanding [or interstanding] of text/context to a particular subset of activity/behavior that *transforms* [through metaphorical selecting processes] the material settings. We can speak or call something text/context only AFTER this metaphorical selecting kind of activity/behavior *constitutes* THESE texts/contexts. Another interesting observation is that this kind of semiotic mediation forming texts/contexts *realizes* concepts and *realizes* feelings and *realizes* perceptions . The underlying metaphorical selecting process of something becoming text/context AS semiotic mechanism remains pretty much the same. As you call to our attention, there is ONLY the forming of text/context when *something* has been metaphorically selected *as* a selecting process [which includes gestural metaphor, phonological metaphor, and lexicogrammatical metaphor]. This selection process occurs FOR creating both text and context which moves us towards *sense* and *shared meanings*. And this returns us to Cultural Community psychology where culture is defined AS shared meaning. In conclusion *activity settings* and *behavioural settings* are too general and do NOT highlight or illuminate the particular KINDS of activity settings and behavioural settings that generate *sense* and *shared meanings*. David, I hope I have done justice to your exploration of text/context?? If not I will continue to remain open to your calling me back to this topic and topos. Larry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: David Kellogg Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 1:33 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion Rod: Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean speaking parent and one English speaking one): a) English: What's this? b) English: Is it a ...? c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the large person making so much noise might be thinking something along those lines too. So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for the second. I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do next?) David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context since my > own understanding of this term is in the context of trying to understand > how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by social and physical > contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to > separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' thought process apart > from the interactions in which it can occur. > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts have > their meanings is particularly relevant here. The intersubjectivity > available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a family is of a different > order to that available between otherwise unconnected speakers of the > 'same' language. Where one is rooted in a history of shared experiences in > common contexts the other is rooted in a history of more or less > abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from above' > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this is that > intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a conversation rather > than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is not an achieved end but a > means towards sharing understanding (I like the idea that the word > understanding is misunderstood - 'under' deriving from the same root as > 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' - to understand something > is to stand IN it). > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or watching > films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is importantly > different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting with them, can enrich > our personal understanding by exposing us to different ways of thinking but > I think we have to recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to > be understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing > of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > philosophical thought-play. > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > All the best, > > Rod > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch of us > has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of human life. > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can understand > each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has appropriated > zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared activity and the law > of genetic development. > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in the > early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as > 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I read in > your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in just > this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to > "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a > mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. Achieving > interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. But on > the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the larger > system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a > concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > assimilated. > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you were > using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning than I > would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors > feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I don't > even know it means to "feel values." > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be in > sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration (my > preferred term, rather than "joint > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they are > rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different > concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of > having a "center of commonality." > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in > > each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency > > of common citations). As described in our article, we and several of > > our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT > > concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP project, > > Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with Greenfield. > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would be > > interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite direction. > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with > > Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a > > universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for > > change. > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology > > of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the > > commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that commonality > > with developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > process. > > > > Cliff > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not > >> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other > >> papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely > >> describing the field, and how it evolved from community to cultural > >> community psychology. > >> > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found > >> clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of > >> the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important input > >> that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then I > >> wondered on what had been other sources. What were other foundational > >> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them in part > >> because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT gives > >> input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) inputs in > >> the other direction. > >> > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality > >> in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions > >> to research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, > >> Delta theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In > >> the case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a > >> scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism and the > >> sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a very brief first > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. This > >> sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a central > >> source. Again, here I would love to hear what other insights/sources > >> are involved that may provide new insights to those more familiar to > >> CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Alfredo > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> on behalf of mike cole > >> > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > >> > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > >> > >> > >> > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as > >> people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before this > >> part of the discussion could take place. > >> > >> > >> > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community > >> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred > >> to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym > >> for cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a > >> tradition of chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our > >> different interests. > >> > >> > >> > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be > >> celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing > >> communication. > >> > >> > >> > >> get your copy at > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > >> > >> > >> > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > >> interested. > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > >> > >> > >> > >> mike > >> > >> -- > >> > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > Professor Emeritus > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > Division 27) > > > > University of Hawai'i > > Department of Psychology > > 2530 Dole Street > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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 dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Mar 20 18:12:40 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:12:40 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> <56ef1766.6c42420a.ad4c.ffffea60@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Larry: As usual, you "select" exactly what I was trying share. By focusing on the selection of certain things (objects and the feelings/thoughts they evoke, exemplars of concepts) from the material setting we return, with a resounding creak and a crash, to the door of choice, of volition, of will, that gate of human freedom upon which all meaning (meaning, intention!) must perforce hinge. And that door opens on text, without which we cannot speak of context. I think that all text must be seen as more or less metaphorical, which is really a way of saying that any way of saying can be more or less mediated. Any wording is a "phonological" metaphor: that is, an attempt to make an act of sounding stand for an act of thinking. Some wordings are even more metaphorical; that is, more mediated, because there is metaphor on top of metaphor, or mediation on top of mediation. If I say (or better yet, sing) that Violetta is both a cross and a delicacy to the heart, then I am making a complex act of sounding ("croce e delizia al cor") stand for an act of thinking of three objects (a wooden cross, a Parisian patisserie, and a pump for blood) which makes me think of three other things (torture, delight, and a love which causes the whole universe to palpitate from one to the other). Ilyenkov's big problem was this: the orthodox, Pavlovian, interpretation of Vygotsky's legacy was that meaning was "objective" because it was a "second signal system"--that is, a stimulus that made some kind of sensory response in the nerves that made some kind of higher response in the brain. I think Ilyenkov could see perfectly well that this was just another Cartesian dualism: physical sensation in the nerves was a stimulus and cogitation in the brain was the response. So he turned us all inside out. Oh, yes: meaning is objective alright, but not because it leads us to some kind of spark in the brain neurons; it's objective because it leads us to human activity in the environment. MY problem is that this is only a reasonable description of how meaning might occur in infants. But most meaning is not like this: most meaning is conventional, not so much in the sense that it is "arbitrary" (that's exactly what it isn't, as soon as we put it in context) but in the sense that it leads us along links that, unlike those of activity, are non-causal. It may make perfect sense to say that the word "clap" leads, along a causal link, to the activity of clapping. But it makes no sense to say that the word "croce" causes one to be nailed on a cross, or the word "delizia" fills one's stomach with French pastry, or even that my thoughts and feelings are what cause me to sing in the shower. Coincide they do, but that coincidence is conventional and not causal. That's why it is one thing to say (as Helen Keller did) that everything must have a name, but it is very different to say that anything can be a name (the first is manifestly false, while the second is almost true). Anything can be a name, and we need a name for this non-causal relationship between soundings, wordings, meanings, contexts, and material settings. Halliday likes the word "realization", and my supervisor, David Butt, dislikes it for exactly the same reason. In English, the word "realization" has TWO apparently opposed meanings. When we say that a word is a meaning is "realized" as a wording, or a wording is "realized" as a sounding, we are saying that there is a step away from ideality towards tangible, physical, sensuous reality. But when we say that a sounding "realizes" a wording, or a wording "realizes" a meaning, or a meaning "realizes" a context, or that a context "realizes" a material setting, we are saying precisely the opposite. We're not just looking at active and passive forms of the same process: it's a different process. We are saying that the wording makes us realize what is meant, and the meaning makes us aware of the context, and the context makes us aware of some element in the material setting. Even in the last case, "realization" is a step in the direction of awareness, that is, ideality, and not reality. Halliday sees these two different processes as linked (and so they are), and David thinks they are more distinct (that too). David Kellogg Macquarie University PS: For those who are curious about the references to wooden crosses and French pastries, or who just want to hear a thumping good tune realized by two exquisite singers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBm4fX7v8_A dk . On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:34 AM, wrote: > David, > > I am slowly beginning to make some sense of where you are leading us in > the way you are qualifying the meaning of con/text to that which > particular phenomena that occurs as a particular kind of **activity** or * > *behavior**. It is NOT a general endorsement of activity or behavior. > > The particular quality forming this **text/context** is this process of * > *selection** that occurs within metaphorical ways of proceeding. > > You do NOT see how activity which is NOT semiotic activity [metaphorical > selecting activity] and you do NOT see how behavior that is NOT semiotic > behavior [metaphorical selecting behavior] can possibly create > texts/contexts. > > You are inviting [or calling] us to limit our understanding [or > interstanding] of text/context to a particular subset of activity/behavior > that **transforms** [through metaphorical selecting processes] the > material settings. > > We can speak or call something text/context only AFTER this metaphorical > selecting kind of activity/behavior **constitutes** THESE texts/contexts. > > > > Another interesting observation is that this kind of semiotic mediation > forming texts/contexts **realizes** concepts and **realizes** feelings > and **realizes** perceptions . The underlying metaphorical selecting > process of something becoming text/context AS semiotic mechanism remains > pretty much the same. > > As you call to our attention, there is ONLY the forming of text/context > when **something** has been metaphorically selected **as** a selecting > process [which includes gestural metaphor, phonological metaphor, and > lexicogrammatical metaphor]. > > This selection process occurs FOR creating both text and context which > moves us towards **sense** and **shared meanings**. > > And this returns us to Cultural Community psychology where culture is > defined AS shared meaning. > > > > In conclusion **activity settings** and **behavioural settings** are too > general and do NOT highlight or illuminate the particular KINDS of activity > settings and behavioural settings that generate **sense** and **shared > meanings**. > > David, I hope I have done justice to your exploration of text/context?? > > If not I will continue to remain open to your calling me back to this > topic and topos. > > Larry > > > > Sent from Mail for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *David Kellogg > *Sent: *Sunday, March 20, 2016 1:33 PM > *To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > Rod: > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. Here's > > the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We ask four > > questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean speaking parent > > and one English speaking one): > > > > a) English: What's this? > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next three > > years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. That it > > contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors but meant to > > be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. That the letters are > > not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. That the symbols encode > > settings, characters, and problems. That the problems can only be solved by > > means of dialogue, etc. > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not concentrate on > > the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time I did it, the child > > literally could not look away from it! You could see that although the > > child had no idea what was being said, the child was might just be starting > > to think some proto-language equivalent of "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi > > got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And after a minute or so, the child looked > > up, as if to see whether the large person making so much noise might be > > thinking something along those lines too. > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all whether > > the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, the underlying > > semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it seems that there's only > > text when something has been selected from the material setting by some > > human consciousness or consciousnesses for semiotic transformation; there's > > only text when there some kind of "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act of > > selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and it's > > premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example I > > wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for the > > second. > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural > > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline of > > instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a context of > > situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the end I'm at right > > now. At the other, we have the relationship between a context of culture > > (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language system (again, Halliday). I > > gather that's the end at which the KEEP and the Community Development > > projects in Micronesia and the Delinquency Research plans are working. But > > I don't see how "activity" or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless > > it is semiotic activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as > > well start looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem of > > anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, > > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. Can > > you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do next?) > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context since > my > > > own understanding of this term is in the context of trying to understand > > > how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by social and physical > > > contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to > > > separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' thought process apart > > > from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts have > > > their meanings is particularly relevant here. The intersubjectivity > > > available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a family is of a different > > > order to that available between otherwise unconnected speakers of the > > > 'same' language. Where one is rooted in a history of shared experiences > in > > > common contexts the other is rooted in a history of more or less > > > abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from above' > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this is > that > > > intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a conversation > rather > > > than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is not an achieved end but a > > > means towards sharing understanding (I like the idea that the word > > > understanding is misunderstood - 'under' deriving from the same root as > > > 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' - to understand something > > > is to stand IN it). > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or watching > > > films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is importantly > > > different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting with them, can > enrich > > > our personal understanding by exposing us to different ways of thinking > but > > > I think we have to recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has > to > > > be understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing > > > of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > > > philosophical thought-play. > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch of > us > > > has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of human > life. > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > understand > > > each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has appropriated > > > zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared activity and the > law > > > of genetic development. > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in the > > > early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as > > > 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I read > in > > > your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in > just > > > this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to > > > "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a > > > mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. Achieving > > > interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. But on > > > the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the larger > > > system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a > > > concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > > > assimilated. > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you were > > > using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning than I > > > would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors > > > feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I don't > > > even know it means to "feel values." > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be in > > > sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration (my > > > preferred term, rather than "joint > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they are > > > rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different > > > concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of > > > having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in > > > > each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency > > > > of common citations). As described in our article, we and several of > > > > our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT > > > > concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP project, > > > > Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with Greenfield. > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would be > > > > interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite direction. > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with > > > > Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a > > > > universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for > > > > change. > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology > > > > of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the > > > > commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that commonality > > > > with developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > > > process. > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not > > > >> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other > > > >> papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely > > > >> describing the field, and how it evolved from community to cultural > > > >> community psychology. > > > >> > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found > > > >> clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of > > > >> the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important input > > > >> that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then I > > > >> wondered on what had been other sources. What were other foundational > > > >> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them in part > > > >> because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT gives > > > >> input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) inputs in > > > >> the other direction. > > > >> > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality > > > >> in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions > > > >> to research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, > > > >> Delta theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In > > > >> the case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a > > > >> scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism and the > > > >> sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a very brief first > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. This > > > >> sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a central > > > >> source. Again, here I would love to hear what other insights/sources > > > >> are involved that may provide new insights to those more familiar to > > > >> CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Alfredo > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > >> > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > >> > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as > > > >> people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before this > > > >> part of the discussion could take place. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community > > > >> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred > > > >> to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym > > > >> for cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a > > > >> tradition of chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our > > > >> different interests. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be > > > >> celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing > > > >> communication. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> get your copy at > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > > >> interested. > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> mike > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > > >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > > Division 27) > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > 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 Sun Mar 20 18:48:45 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:48:45 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> <56ef1766.6c42420a.ad4c.ffffea60@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Contextors- Call this one, "on the ordering of things" -------- Apropos David's thoughts about text emerging from context, I had what I believe is a relevant experience last evening. Perhaps this is a relevant context in which to relate the experience. We have a bird feeder on the hill that rises from the back of the house. Bird seed is for most of the finches and other small birds that live in this semi desert (and the rabbit who feasts on the dropped seeds). Near the bird seed is a cup of grape jelly. It is a favored food of the orioles, hooded orioles, among whom the male is bright orange-yellow. It was late afternoon. The sun was setting to the west, and our hillside was alight with the slowly fading glow as it slipped behind the horizon. I stood for a moment to watch the finch-like birds eating and reflecting on the fact that a feeder that had remained full all day was rapidly being depleted. Then... in what is said to be the blink of the eye. a bright yellow flash appeared in the middle of my visual/attentional field. It was so striking a physical experience that it was a noticeable moment before I could name the phenomenon that I had experienced - the appearance of a male oriole. I was focused in my thoughts last night on the distinction between natural/phylogenetic and culturally mediated perception ala LSV. As a result of Ross and David's exchange, I need to rethink the experience in terms of which comes first, the text or the context. David has this relations as first the natural, then the conscious. I am not so sure of a first-second ordering. To me it seems that the second overlaid the first with a very brief, seemingly unconsious experience of "re-cognition." Gotta love con-text as a topic for chatting! mike On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:12 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Larry: > > As usual, you "select" exactly what I was trying share. By focusing on the > selection of certain things (objects and the feelings/thoughts they > evoke, exemplars of concepts) from the material setting we return, with a > resounding creak and a crash, to the door of choice, of volition, of will, > that gate of human freedom upon which all meaning (meaning, intention!) > must perforce hinge. And that door opens on text, without which we cannot > speak of context. > > I think that all text must be seen as more or less metaphorical, which is > really a way of saying that any way of saying can be more or less mediated. > Any wording is a "phonological" metaphor: that is, an attempt to make an > act of sounding stand for an act of thinking. Some wordings are even more > metaphorical; that is, more mediated, because there is metaphor on top of > metaphor, or mediation on top of mediation. If I say (or better yet, sing) > that Violetta is both a cross and a delicacy to the heart, then I am making > a complex act of sounding ("croce e delizia al cor") stand for an act of > thinking of three objects (a wooden cross, a Parisian patisserie, and a > pump for blood) which makes me think of three other things (torture, > delight, and a love which causes the whole universe to palpitate from one > to the other). > > Ilyenkov's big problem was this: the orthodox, Pavlovian, interpretation of > Vygotsky's legacy was that meaning was "objective" because it was a "second > signal system"--that is, a stimulus that made some kind of sensory response > in the nerves that made some kind of higher response in the brain. I think > Ilyenkov could see perfectly well that this was just another Cartesian > dualism: physical sensation in the nerves was a stimulus and cogitation in > the brain was the response. So he turned us all inside out. Oh, yes: > meaning is objective alright, but not because it leads us to some kind of > spark in the brain neurons; it's objective because it leads us to human > activity in the environment. > > MY problem is that this is only a reasonable description of how meaning > might occur in infants. But most meaning is not like this: most meaning > is conventional, not so much in the sense that it is "arbitrary" (that's > exactly what it isn't, as soon as we put it in context) but in the sense > that it leads us along links that, unlike those of activity, are > non-causal. It may make perfect sense to say that the word "clap" > leads, along a causal link, to the activity of clapping. But it makes > no sense to say that the word "croce" causes one to be nailed on a cross, > or the word "delizia" fills one's stomach with French pastry, or even that > my thoughts and feelings are what cause me to sing in the shower. Coincide > they do, but that coincidence is conventional and not causal. That's why it > is one thing to say (as Helen Keller did) that everything must have a name, > but it is very different to say that anything can be a name (the first is > manifestly false, while the second is almost true). > > Anything can be a name, and we need a name for this non-causal relationship > between soundings, wordings, meanings, contexts, and material settings. > Halliday likes the word "realization", and my supervisor, David Butt, > dislikes it for exactly the same reason. In English, the word "realization" > has TWO apparently opposed meanings. When we say that a word is a meaning > is "realized" as a wording, or a wording is "realized" as a sounding, we > are saying that there is a step away from ideality towards tangible, > physical, sensuous reality. But when we say that a sounding "realizes" a > wording, or a wording "realizes" a meaning, or a meaning "realizes" a > context, or that a context "realizes" a material setting, we are saying > precisely the opposite. We're not just looking at active and passive forms > of the same process: it's a different process. We are saying that the > wording makes us realize what is meant, and the meaning makes us aware of > the context, and the context makes us aware of some element in the material > setting. Even in the last case, "realization" is a step in the direction of > awareness, that is, ideality, and not reality. Halliday sees these two > different processes as linked (and so they are), and David thinks they are > more distinct (that too). > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > PS: For those who are curious about the references to wooden crosses and > French pastries, or who just want to hear a thumping good tune realized by > two exquisite singers: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBm4fX7v8_A > > > dk > > > > . > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:34 AM, wrote: > > > David, > > > > I am slowly beginning to make some sense of where you are leading us in > > the way you are qualifying the meaning of con/text to that which > > particular phenomena that occurs as a particular kind of **activity** or > * > > *behavior**. It is NOT a general endorsement of activity or behavior. > > > > The particular quality forming this **text/context** is this process of * > > *selection** that occurs within metaphorical ways of proceeding. > > > > You do NOT see how activity which is NOT semiotic activity [metaphorical > > selecting activity] and you do NOT see how behavior that is NOT semiotic > > behavior [metaphorical selecting behavior] can possibly create > > texts/contexts. > > > > You are inviting [or calling] us to limit our understanding [or > > interstanding] of text/context to a particular subset of > activity/behavior > > that **transforms** [through metaphorical selecting processes] the > > material settings. > > > > We can speak or call something text/context only AFTER this metaphorical > > selecting kind of activity/behavior **constitutes** THESE texts/contexts. > > > > > > > > Another interesting observation is that this kind of semiotic mediation > > forming texts/contexts **realizes** concepts and **realizes** feelings > > and **realizes** perceptions . The underlying metaphorical selecting > > process of something becoming text/context AS semiotic mechanism remains > > pretty much the same. > > > > As you call to our attention, there is ONLY the forming of text/context > > when **something** has been metaphorically selected **as** a selecting > > process [which includes gestural metaphor, phonological metaphor, and > > lexicogrammatical metaphor]. > > > > This selection process occurs FOR creating both text and context which > > moves us towards **sense** and **shared meanings**. > > > > And this returns us to Cultural Community psychology where culture is > > defined AS shared meaning. > > > > > > > > In conclusion **activity settings** and **behavioural settings** are too > > general and do NOT highlight or illuminate the particular KINDS of > activity > > settings and behavioural settings that generate **sense** and **shared > > meanings**. > > > > David, I hope I have done justice to your exploration of text/context?? > > > > If not I will continue to remain open to your calling me back to this > > topic and topos. > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > Sent from Mail for > > Windows 10 > > > > > > > > *From: *David Kellogg > > *Sent: *Sunday, March 20, 2016 1:33 PM > > *To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > Rod: > > > > > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. Here's > > > > the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We ask four > > > > questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean speaking > parent > > > > and one English speaking one): > > > > > > > > a) English: What's this? > > > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next three > > > > years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. That it > > > > contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors but meant > to > > > > be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. That the letters > are > > > > not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. That the symbols encode > > > > settings, characters, and problems. That the problems can only be solved > by > > > > means of dialogue, etc. > > > > > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not concentrate > on > > > > the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time I did it, the > child > > > > literally could not look away from it! You could see that although the > > > > child had no idea what was being said, the child was might just be > starting > > > > to think some proto-language equivalent of "What's this?" "Is it a...?" > "Yi > > > > got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And after a minute or so, the child looked > > > > up, as if to see whether the large person making so much noise might be > > > > thinking something along those lines too. > > > > > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all whether > > > > the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, the > underlying > > > > semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it seems that there's > only > > > > text when something has been selected from the material setting by some > > > > human consciousness or consciousnesses for semiotic transformation; > there's > > > > only text when there some kind of "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > > > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act of > > > > selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and it's > > > > premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example I > > > > wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for the > > > > second. > > > > > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural > > > > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline of > > > > instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a context of > > > > situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the end I'm at right > > > > now. At the other, we have the relationship between a context of culture > > > > (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language system (again, Halliday). > I > > > > gather that's the end at which the KEEP and the Community Development > > > > projects in Micronesia and the Delinquency Research plans are working. > But > > > > I don't see how "activity" or "behaviour" can ever realize context, > unless > > > > it is semiotic activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as > > > > well start looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger > is. > > > > > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem of > > > > anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, > > > > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. Can > > > > you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do next?) > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context since > > my > > > > > own understanding of this term is in the context of trying to > understand > > > > > how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by social and > physical > > > > > contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to > > > > > separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' thought process > apart > > > > > from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts > have > > > > > their meanings is particularly relevant here. The intersubjectivity > > > > > available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a family is of a > different > > > > > order to that available between otherwise unconnected speakers of the > > > > > 'same' language. Where one is rooted in a history of shared experiences > > in > > > > > common contexts the other is rooted in a history of more or less > > > > > abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from above' > > > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > > > > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this is > > that > > > > > intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a conversation > > rather > > > > > than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is not an achieved end but > a > > > > > means towards sharing understanding (I like the idea that the word > > > > > understanding is misunderstood - 'under' deriving from the same root as > > > > > 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' - to understand > something > > > > > is to stand IN it). > > > > > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or watching > > > > > films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is importantly > > > > > different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting with them, can > > enrich > > > > > our personal understanding by exposing us to different ways of thinking > > but > > > > > I think we have to recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting > has > > to > > > > > be understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest > knowing > > > > > of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > > > > > philosophical thought-play. > > > > > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch of > > us > > > > > has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of human > > life. > > > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > understand > > > > > each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has appropriated > > > > > zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared activity and the > > law > > > > > of genetic development. > > > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > > > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in > the > > > > > early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as > > > > > 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I read > > in > > > > > your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in > > just > > > > > this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached > to > > > > > "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a > > > > > mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. > Achieving > > > > > interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. But > on > > > > > the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the larger > > > > > system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a > > > > > concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is > already > > > > > assimilated. > > > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you > were > > > > > using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning than > I > > > > > would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves > co-actors > > > > > feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I > don't > > > > > even know it means to "feel values." > > > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be > in > > > > > sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration (my > > > > > preferred term, rather than "joint > > > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > > > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they are > > > > > rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > > > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different > > > > > concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of > > > > > having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > > > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in > > > > > > each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency > > > > > > of common citations). As described in our article, we and several of > > > > > > our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT > > > > > > concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP project, > > > > > > Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with Greenfield. > > > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would > be > > > > > > interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with > > > > > > Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a > > > > > > universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for > > > > > > change. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > > > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology > > > > > > of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the > > > > > > commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that > commonality > > > > > > with developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. > > > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > not > > > > > >> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other > > > > > >> papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely > > > > > >> describing the field, and how it evolved from community to cultural > > > > > >> community psychology. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > > > > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found > > > > > >> clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of > > > > > >> the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important > input > > > > > >> that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then I > > > > > >> wondered on what had been other sources. What were other > foundational > > > > > >> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them in > part > > > > > >> because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT gives > > > > > >> input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) inputs > in > > > > > >> the other direction. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality > > > > > >> in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions > > > > > >> to research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your > paper, > > > > > >> Delta theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In > > > > > >> the case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a > > > > > >> scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism and the > > > > > >> sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a very brief first > > > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > This > > > > > >> sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a central > > > > > >> source. Again, here I would love to hear what other insights/sources > > > > > >> are involved that may provide new insights to those more familiar to > > > > > >> CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > > > > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. > > > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as > > > > > >> people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before this > > > > > >> part of the discussion could take place. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > Community > > > > > >> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred > > > > > >> to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym > > > > > >> for cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a > > > > > >> tradition of chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our > > > > > >> different interests. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > > > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be > > > > > >> celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > enhancing > > > > > >> communication. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> get your copy at > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > > > > >> interested. > > > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mike > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > > > > >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > > > > Division 27) > > > > > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- 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 Mon Mar 21 02:01:44 2016 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:01:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Which comes first, context or text? Message-ID: David, I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of the Tharp and O'Donnell article. If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It is when people connect their interests in some way and share meanings that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said anything when you presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the second presentation would be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, this thing that we do' and this feeling of shared experience does seem to play an important part in infants' assisted ability to weave public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys but only if they have played with the toys together - watching the researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the infant's knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other researchers or other toys). So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences and guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded by a cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the concept systems which have evolved out of the patterns in people's behaviour. What their caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped both by what those caregivers have seen other people do and by a long history of people hearing and reading about what other people do and have done. I would like to be able to use context to refer to the culturally patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have understood correctly - and what are the chances?) to refer to a personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into different contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong at the core of the group. If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument that infant development has to be understood in terms of interwoven processes of making sense and making relationships - drawing together a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion Rod: Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean speaking parent and one English speaking one): a) English: What's this? b) English: Is it a ...? c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the large person making so much noise might be thinking something along those lines too. So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for the second. I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do next?) David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying to > understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in a > history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is rooted > in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from above' > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this is > that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is not > an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I like the > idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' deriving > from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting with > them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of philosophical thought-play. > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > All the best, > > Rod > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of human life. > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has > appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared > activity and the law of genetic development. > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I > read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and > used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the > meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in > pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can index different > concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of > shared concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a concept > is ultimately the larger system of practices to which it is > indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can only be shared when > the broader context of its use is already assimilated. > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning > than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves > co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be > in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration > (my preferred term, rather than "joint > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they are > rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different > concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of > having a "center of commonality." > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in > > each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency > > of common citations). As described in our article, we and several of > > our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT > > concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with Greenfield. > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would > > be interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite direction. > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the > > symbol for change. > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > process. > > > > Cliff > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community > >> to cultural community psychology. > >> > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found > >> clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of > >> the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important > >> input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then > >> I wondered on what had been other sources. What were other > >> foundational influences to the field? I'd be interested to know > >> about them in part because, while the paper discusses many examples > >> in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about > >> the (possible) inputs in the other direction. > >> > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory > >> (I just had a very brief first > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Alfredo > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> on behalf of mike cole > >> > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > >> > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > >> > >> > >> > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before > >> this part of the discussion could take place. > >> > >> > >> > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because > >> it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, but > >> because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas in > >> papers that sample our different interests. > >> > >> > >> > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > >> enhancing communication. > >> > >> > >> > >> get your copy at > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > >> > >> > >> > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > >> interested. > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > >> > >> > >> > >> mike > >> > >> -- > >> > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > Professor Emeritus > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > Division 27) > > > > University of Hawai'i > > Department of Psychology > > 2530 Dole Street > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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 smago@uga.edu Mon Mar 21 10:49:47 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:49:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: Which comes first, context or text? Message-ID: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234757444_Context_Text_Intertext_Toward_a_Constructivist_Semiotic_of_Writing This article, now nearly a quarter century old, might be of interest to those following this thread. p From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Mar 21 11:49:45 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:49:45 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Community Psychology and Context Message-ID: So many articles have been suggested for reading deeper into the issues raised by Cliff and Roland that I fear people might get buried under the load. To short circuit a lot. Here are a couple of key passages from forwarded sources that seem to highlight the core issues C&R are concerned with. The first is from that annual review article on community psych. It seems to make a lot of connections between culture, community psychology, and long standing chat-related turns. It makes the centrality of the term, context, to the field of community psych in a way that seems to resonate with recent writings that involve community-based research appearing in MCA. And with the discussion about con- text mike -------------- >From its ?official? origin in 1965 (Bennett et al. 1966), community psychology has been guided by the dual objectives of understanding people in context and attempting to change those aspects of the community that pollute the possibilities for local citizens to control their own lives and improve their community. An ecological perspective, directing attention to the social and cultural contexts of communities and the community life of individuals, has been central to both the research and action arms of this agenda (Kelly 1968). Conceptually, the ecological perspective provides a framework for understanding people in community context and the community context itself. It adopts a coping and adaptation perspective on individual behavior in community context and assumes that people are agentic and not passive responders to their environments. As such, attention is directed to the transactions between individuals with varied cultural histories, skills, resources, and personal predicaments and the opportunities, resources, and constraints of the social contexts of relevance to them. The ecological perspective also explicitly asserts the adaptive value of diversity in the kinds of behaviors individuals select in their efforts to survive and indeed thrive. The adaptive value of individual behavior is thus assessed only in the context in which it arises as a means of coping. No one kind of adaptive behavior fits all. -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Mar 21 12:11:57 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:11:57 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To follow up on the text/context version of the current discussions, I am attaching two pages from a Ray McDermott discussion of context. The first page refers to Ray Birdwhistle's idea of context as a twisted rope and describes a figure/ground illusion that Ray uses to discuss text/context as I understand its use here (not having read the paper that Peter sent). Keeping it brief. Watch the spiralling concentric circles! mike On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234757444_Context_Text_Intertext_Toward_a_Constructivist_Semiotic_of_Writing > This article, now nearly a quarter century old, might be of interest to > those following this thread. p > > -- 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: mcd1 001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1068025 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160321/8d991988/attachment-0002.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mcd2 001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1164330 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160321/8d991988/attachment-0003.jpg From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Mar 21 12:19:28 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:19:28 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" which you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials from is called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. In that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to declare that "the activity is the context." So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to over and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use of the term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of this is presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. mike On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with Roland. > In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, and > intersubjectivity. > Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community psychology > by its professional organization, > the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): > ?'to promote theory development and research that increases > our understanding of human behavior in context?' > (SCRA 2010 )." > > After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the definition as > the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history > and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we noted > "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a shared > value, > agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will always > be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, and > emotions. In > addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in flux > and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change over > time (O?Donnell et al. > 1993, p. 507)." > > Cliff > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC side >> of Roland and Cliff's article. >> >> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a while >> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. >> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and Intervention >> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source of >> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do professionally. >> >> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified >> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. >> >> mike >> >> -- >> >> 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 james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk Mon Mar 21 13:39:27 2016 From: james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk (Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk)) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:39:27 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps we shouldn't think that context and text would be a causal dilemma like chicken and egg. Research has already confirmed that an eggshell is formed through the protein within a hen's ovaries - which means that an egg can exist only if it's been inside a hen. So, it might be a good idea to think that context comes first. Otherwise, context is text's way of making another text; text is context's way of making another context. James Ma ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: 21 March 2016 17:49 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity (xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu) Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: Which comes first, context or text? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234757444_Context_Text_Intertext_Toward_a_Constructivist_Semiotic_of_Writing This article, now nearly a quarter century old, might be of interest to those following this thread. p From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Mon Mar 21 13:52:04 2016 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:52:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1458593523038.80717@iped.uio.no> I think that an even better question concerning the discussion on the primacy of context over text (or the opposite) concerns the epistemology that affords posing the question in just those terms: if we wonder whether context or text come before or after, then we are already assuming that there must be a temporal delay between them. Of course, the answer might be: they come just at the same time. Any of the three possible answers begin from a view of the world as a set of substances that can be ordered temporally, some being figure, others being background. Now, imagine that we begin from a different epistemological perspective: one where time is inherent to the phenomenon (to all phenomena), and so questions of temporality make no sense because phenomena are, in themselves, temporizing phenomena. Then, the question is not what comes first, nor is it the answer: the context comes first. Rather is, what kind of historical unfolding (phenomenon) leads to the existence of just THIS con-text relation? Then look for the historical conditions that allow (and therefore explain) the existence of anything like the egg-hen unit. I take this to be the sort of ecological approach Bateson was suggesting, someone that, along with Birdwhistell already mentioned in a previous e-mail, discussed the notion of context. Best wishes Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) Sent: 21 March 2016 21:39 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity (xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? Perhaps we shouldn't think that context and text would be a causal dilemma like chicken and egg. Research has already confirmed that an eggshell is formed through the protein within a hen's ovaries - which means that an egg can exist only if it's been inside a hen. So, it might be a good idea to think that context comes first. Otherwise, context is text's way of making another text; text is context's way of making another context. James Ma ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: 21 March 2016 17:49 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity (xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu) Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: Which comes first, context or text? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234757444_Context_Text_Intertext_Toward_a_Constructivist_Semiotic_of_Writing This article, now nearly a quarter century old, might be of interest to those following this thread. p From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Mar 21 13:56:50 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 07:56:50 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rod: I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech community as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a language) and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of situation. Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the relationship between context of culture and context of situation as being like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by two different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena which I will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena which I will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a context of situation, we find things the other way around: the interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and therefore backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is accidental is the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, incidental. Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: taken too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture is ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than the sum total of contexts of situations. But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and also Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of instantiation as easily as we do at the other. So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a text, so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the recording thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call discourse, but such is the conservatism of academics we tend to associate text with writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that were text, though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and they don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in the snow. And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally reducible to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or "activity", or "production". It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not production because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one way the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of culture is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume that since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which subtends them must be shared as well. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > David, > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of the > Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in the > wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It is when > people connect their interests in some way and share meanings that stuff > and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said anything when you > presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the second presentation would > be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, this thing that we do' and this > feeling of shared experience does seem to play an important part in > infants' assisted ability to weave public, cultural meanings into their > private, personal experiences. > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of > culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and because > humans are oddly interested in what their infants are interested in, > interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns and styles. Studies > by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in > psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT > Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to 'remember' their > interactions with a researcher and selected toys but only if they have > played with the toys together - watching the researcher play with the toys, > or playing with them while the researcher watches, does not provide enough > embodied, enactive, interactive experience to shape future interactions > (and the infant's knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other > researchers or other toys). > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context > without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a > pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences and > guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded by a > cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the concept systems > which have evolved out of the patterns in people's behaviour. What their > caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped both by what those > caregivers have seen other people do and by a long history of people > hearing and reading about what other people do and have done. I would like > to be able to use context to refer to the culturally patterned environment > in which infants are helped to notice particular kinds of patterns but you > want the word (if I have understood correctly - and what are the chances?) > to refer to a personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, > highlighting the way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into > different contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another > word for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join > in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems which > shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new role to > sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong at the core > of the group. > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would strongly > recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument that infant > development has to be understood in terms of interwoven processes of making > sense and making relationships - drawing together a huge amount of research > on early communication and meaning sharing. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > Rod: > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. Here's > the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We ask four > questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean speaking parent > and one English speaking one): > > a) English: What's this? > b) English: Is it a ...? > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next three > years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. That it > contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors but meant to > be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. That the letters are > not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. That the symbols encode > settings, characters, and problems. That the problems can only be solved by > means of dialogue, etc. > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not concentrate > on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time I did it, the > child literally could not look away from it! You could see that although > the child had no idea what was being said, the child was might just be > starting to think some proto-language equivalent of "What's this?" "Is it > a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And after a minute or so, the > child looked up, as if to see whether the large person making so much noise > might be thinking something along those lines too. > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all whether > the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, the underlying > semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it seems that there's only > text when something has been selected from the material setting by some > human consciousness or consciousnesses for semiotic transformation; there's > only text when there some kind of "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act of > selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and it's > premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example I > wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for the > second. > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline of > instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a context of > situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the end I'm at right > now. At the other, we have the relationship between a context of culture > (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language system (again, Halliday). I > gather that's the end at which the KEEP and the Community Development > projects in Micronesia and the Delinquency Research plans are working. But > I don't see how "activity" or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless > it is semiotic activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as > well start looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem of > anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, and > that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. Can you > give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do next?) > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context > > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying to > > understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by > > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here > > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts > > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a > > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise > > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in a > > history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is rooted > > in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to > experiences but 'from above' > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this is > > that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a > > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is not > > an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I like the > > idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' deriving > > from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is > > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting with > > them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to > > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that > > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a > > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived > > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of philosophical > thought-play. > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch > > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of > human life. > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has > > appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared > > activity and the law of genetic development. > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in > > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced > > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I > > read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and > > used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the > > meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in > > pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can index different > > concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of > > shared concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a concept > > is ultimately the larger system of practices to which it is > > indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can only be shared when > > the broader context of its use is already assimilated. > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you > > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning > > than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves > > co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same > > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be > > in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration > > (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they are > > rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different > > concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of > > having a "center of commonality." > > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in > > > each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency > > > of common citations). As described in our article, we and several of > > > our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT > > > concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with > Greenfield. > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would > > > be interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite > direction. > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems > > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts > > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the > > > symbol for change. > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in > > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to > > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form > > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and > neuro-psychology. > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > > process. > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the > > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and > > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community > > >> to cultural community psychology. > > >> > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found > > >> clear references to these influences, which even meant the delay of > > >> the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important > > >> input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then > > >> I wondered on what had been other sources. What were other > > >> foundational influences to the field? I'd be interested to know > > >> about them in part because, while the paper discusses many examples > > >> in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about > > >> the (possible) inputs in the other direction. > > >> > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however > > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a > > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was > > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on > > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory > > >> (I just had a very brief first > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to > > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Alfredo > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ________________________________________ > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > >> > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > >> > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw > > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before > > >> this part of the discussion could take place. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because > > >> it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, but > > >> because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas in > > >> papers that sample our different interests. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it > > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > > >> enhancing communication. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> get your copy at > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > >> interested. > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> mike > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > Professor Emeritus > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > Division 27) > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > Department of Psychology > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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 Mon Mar 21 15:31:31 2016 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:31:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I understand it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in systems of concepts and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant there is no significant distinction between the attention and activity and the knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words allow multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can exist outside any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but whether we think lived experience is reduced or elevated to shareable knowledge, that knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality by 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends on every hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared branches with private roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared directly, in shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' ability to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It may be possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing into words (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or elevation) but this translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, a generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, even if it has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking about climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a flash of lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants 'discover' that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated into 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the experience of 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I am still very uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can be thought of as semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a situation which has been shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with anything as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of 'Ah, I know what to expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of experience, elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a chance of sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with these posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what feels to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? Rod: I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech community as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a language) and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of situation. Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the relationship between context of culture and context of situation as being like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by two different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena which I will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena which I will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a context of situation, we find things the other way around: the interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and therefore backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is accidental is the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, incidental. Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: taken too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture is ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than the sum total of contexts of situations. But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and also Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of instantiation as easily as we do at the other. So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a text, so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the recording thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call discourse, but such is the conservatism of academics we tend to associate text with writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that were text, though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and they don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in the snow. And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally reducible to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or "activity", or "production". It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not production because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one way the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of culture is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume that since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which subtends them must be shared as well. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > David, > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of > the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in > the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It > is when people connect their interests in some way and share meanings > that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said > anything when you presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the > second presentation would be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, > this thing that we do' and this feeling of shared experience does seem > to play an important part in infants' assisted ability to weave > public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of > culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns > and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in > psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys but > only if they have played with the toys together - watching the > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the infant's > knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other researchers or other toys). > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context > without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a > pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences > and guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded > by a cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the > concept systems which have evolved out of the patterns in people's > behaviour. What their caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped > both by what those caregivers have seen other people do and by a long > history of people hearing and reading about what other people do and > have done. I would like to be able to use context to refer to the > culturally patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice > particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have > understood correctly - and what are the chances?) to refer to a > personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the > way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into different > contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word > for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join > in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new > role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong at the core of the group. > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument > that infant development has to be understood in terms of interwoven > processes of making sense and making relationships - drawing together > a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > Rod: > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We > ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean > speaking parent and one English speaking one): > > a) English: What's this? > b) English: Is it a ...? > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next > three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors > but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the > problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time > I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could > see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child > was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of > "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And > after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the > large person making so much noise might be thinking something along those lines too. > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, > the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it > seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the > material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for > semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of > "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act > of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and > it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example > I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for > the second. > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline > of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a > context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the > end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a > context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language > system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP > and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the > Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem > of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do > next?) > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context > > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying > > to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by > > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here > > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts > > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a > > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise > > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in > > a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is > > rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) > > which refer to > experiences but 'from above' > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this > > is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a > > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is > > not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I > > like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is > > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting > > with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to > > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that > > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a > > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived > > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > > philosophical > thought-play. > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch > > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects > > of > human life. > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC > > has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, > > shared activity and the law of genetic development. > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in > > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced > > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything > > I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood > > and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss > > the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, > > originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can > > index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only > > achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since > > the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of > > practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept > > can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already assimilated. > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you > > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different > > meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity > > involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same > > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to > > be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they > > are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation > > by means of having a "center of commonality." > > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks > > > in each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the > > > infrequency of common citations). As described in our article, we > > > and several of our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and > > > have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with > Greenfield. > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > > > opposite > direction. > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems > > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts > > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the > > > symbol for change. > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in > > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to > > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form > > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and > neuro-psychology. > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > > process. > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the > > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and > > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community > > >> to cultural community psychology. > > >> > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then > > >> found clear references to these influences, which even meant the > > >> delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the > > >> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the > > >> project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What > > >> were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be > > >> interested to know about them in part because, while the paper > > >> discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would > > >> like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other direction. > > >> > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however > > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a > > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was > > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on > > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory > > >> (I just had a very brief first > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to > > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Alfredo > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ________________________________________ > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > >> > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > >> > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw > > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before > > >> this part of the discussion could take place. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, > > >> but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas > > >> in papers that sample our different interests. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it > > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > > >> enhancing communication. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> get your copy at > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > >> interested. > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> mike > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > Professor Emeritus > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > Division 27) > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > Department of Psychology > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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 cliffo@hawaii.edu Mon Mar 21 15:51:02 2016 From: cliffo@hawaii.edu (Cliff O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:51:02 -1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> <56ef1766.6c42420a.ad4c.ffffea60@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <1C3DE098-5BA4-496F-A763-8F00BCB3D535@hawaii.edu> On Mar 20, 2016, at 3:48 PM, mike cole wrote: > Contextors- > Call this one, "on the ordering of things" > > -------- > > Apropos David's thoughts about text emerging from context, I had > what I > believe is a relevant experience last evening. Perhaps this is a > relevant > context in which to relate the experience. > > > > We have a bird feeder on the hill that rises from the back of the > house. > Bird seed is for most of the finches and other small birds that live > in > this semi desert (and the rabbit who feasts on the dropped seeds). > Near the > bird seed is a cup of grape jelly. It is a favored food of the > orioles, > hooded orioles, among whom the male is bright orange-yellow. > > > > It was late afternoon. The sun was setting to the west, and our > hillside > was alight with the slowly fading glow as it slipped behind the > horizon. I > stood for a moment to watch the finch-like birds eating and > reflecting on > the fact that a feeder that had remained full all day was rapidly > being > depleted. Then... in what is said to be the blink of the eye. a bright > yellow flash appeared in the middle of my visual/attentional field. > It was > so striking a physical experience that it was a noticeable moment > before I > could name the phenomenon that I had experienced - the appearance of > a male > oriole. > > > > I was focused in my thoughts last night on the distinction between > natural/phylogenetic and culturally mediated perception ala LSV. As a > result of Ross and David's exchange, > > I need to rethink the experience in terms of which comes first, the > text or > the context. David has this relations as first the natural, then the > conscious. I am not so sure of a first-second ordering. To me it > seems that > the second overlaid the first with a very brief, seemingly unconsious > experience of "re-cognition." > > > > Gotta love con-text as a topic for chatting! > > mike > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:12 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >> Larry: >> >> As usual, you "select" exactly what I was trying share. By focusing >> on the >> selection of certain things (objects and the feelings/thoughts they >> evoke, exemplars of concepts) from the material setting we return, >> with a >> resounding creak and a crash, to the door of choice, of volition, >> of will, >> that gate of human freedom upon which all meaning (meaning, >> intention!) >> must perforce hinge. And that door opens on text, without which we >> cannot >> speak of context. >> >> I think that all text must be seen as more or less metaphorical, >> which is >> really a way of saying that any way of saying can be more or less >> mediated. >> Any wording is a "phonological" metaphor: that is, an attempt to >> make an >> act of sounding stand for an act of thinking. Some wordings are >> even more >> metaphorical; that is, more mediated, because there is metaphor on >> top of >> metaphor, or mediation on top of mediation. If I say (or better >> yet, sing) >> that Violetta is both a cross and a delicacy to the heart, then I >> am making >> a complex act of sounding ("croce e delizia al cor") stand for an >> act of >> thinking of three objects (a wooden cross, a Parisian patisserie, >> and a >> pump for blood) which makes me think of three other things (torture, >> delight, and a love which causes the whole universe to palpitate >> from one >> to the other). >> >> Ilyenkov's big problem was this: the orthodox, Pavlovian, >> interpretation of >> Vygotsky's legacy was that meaning was "objective" because it was a >> "second >> signal system"--that is, a stimulus that made some kind of sensory >> response >> in the nerves that made some kind of higher response in the brain. >> I think >> Ilyenkov could see perfectly well that this was just another >> Cartesian >> dualism: physical sensation in the nerves was a stimulus and >> cogitation in >> the brain was the response. So he turned us all inside out. Oh, yes: >> meaning is objective alright, but not because it leads us to some >> kind of >> spark in the brain neurons; it's objective because it leads us to >> human >> activity in the environment. >> >> MY problem is that this is only a reasonable description of how >> meaning >> might occur in infants. But most meaning is not like this: most >> meaning >> is conventional, not so much in the sense that it is >> "arbitrary" (that's >> exactly what it isn't, as soon as we put it in context) but in the >> sense >> that it leads us along links that, unlike those of activity, are >> non-causal. It may make perfect sense to say that the word "clap" >> leads, along a causal link, to the activity of clapping. But it makes >> no sense to say that the word "croce" causes one to be nailed on a >> cross, >> or the word "delizia" fills one's stomach with French pastry, or >> even that >> my thoughts and feelings are what cause me to sing in the shower. >> Coincide >> they do, but that coincidence is conventional and not causal. >> That's why it >> is one thing to say (as Helen Keller did) that everything must have >> a name, >> but it is very different to say that anything can be a name (the >> first is >> manifestly false, while the second is almost true). >> >> Anything can be a name, and we need a name for this non-causal >> relationship >> between soundings, wordings, meanings, contexts, and material >> settings. >> Halliday likes the word "realization", and my supervisor, David Butt, >> dislikes it for exactly the same reason. In English, the word >> "realization" >> has TWO apparently opposed meanings. When we say that a word is a >> meaning >> is "realized" as a wording, or a wording is "realized" as a >> sounding, we >> are saying that there is a step away from ideality towards tangible, >> physical, sensuous reality. But when we say that a sounding >> "realizes" a >> wording, or a wording "realizes" a meaning, or a meaning "realizes" a >> context, or that a context "realizes" a material setting, we are >> saying >> precisely the opposite. We're not just looking at active and >> passive forms >> of the same process: it's a different process. We are saying that the >> wording makes us realize what is meant, and the meaning makes us >> aware of >> the context, and the context makes us aware of some element in the >> material >> setting. Even in the last case, "realization" is a step in the >> direction of >> awareness, that is, ideality, and not reality. Halliday sees these >> two >> different processes as linked (and so they are), and David thinks >> they are >> more distinct (that too). >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> PS: For those who are curious about the references to wooden >> crosses and >> French pastries, or who just want to hear a thumping good tune >> realized by >> two exquisite singers: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBm4fX7v8_A >> >> >> dk >> >> >> >> . >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:34 AM, wrote: >> >>> David, >>> >>> I am slowly beginning to make some sense of where you are leading >>> us in >>> the way you are qualifying the meaning of con/text to that which >>> particular phenomena that occurs as a particular kind of >>> **activity** or >> * >>> *behavior**. It is NOT a general endorsement of activity or >>> behavior. >>> >>> The particular quality forming this **text/context** is this >>> process of * >>> *selection** that occurs within metaphorical ways of proceeding. >>> >>> You do NOT see how activity which is NOT semiotic activity >>> [metaphorical >>> selecting activity] and you do NOT see how behavior that is NOT >>> semiotic >>> behavior [metaphorical selecting behavior] can possibly create >>> texts/contexts. >>> >>> You are inviting [or calling] us to limit our understanding [or >>> interstanding] of text/context to a particular subset of >> activity/behavior >>> that **transforms** [through metaphorical selecting processes] the >>> material settings. >>> >>> We can speak or call something text/context only AFTER this >>> metaphorical >>> selecting kind of activity/behavior **constitutes** THESE texts/ >>> contexts. >>> >>> >>> >>> Another interesting observation is that this kind of semiotic >>> mediation >>> forming texts/contexts **realizes** concepts and **realizes** >>> feelings >>> and **realizes** perceptions . The underlying metaphorical selecting >>> process of something becoming text/context AS semiotic mechanism >>> remains >>> pretty much the same. >>> >>> As you call to our attention, there is ONLY the forming of text/ >>> context >>> when **something** has been metaphorically selected **as** a >>> selecting >>> process [which includes gestural metaphor, phonological metaphor, >>> and >>> lexicogrammatical metaphor]. >>> >>> This selection process occurs FOR creating both text and context >>> which >>> moves us towards **sense** and **shared meanings**. >>> >>> And this returns us to Cultural Community psychology where culture >>> is >>> defined AS shared meaning. >>> >>> >>> >>> In conclusion **activity settings** and **behavioural settings** >>> are too >>> general and do NOT highlight or illuminate the particular KINDS of >> activity >>> settings and behavioural settings that generate **sense** and >>> **shared >>> meanings**. >>> >>> David, I hope I have done justice to your exploration of text/ >>> context?? >>> >>> If not I will continue to remain open to your calling me back to >>> this >>> topic and topos. >>> >>> Larry >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from Mail for >>> Windows 10 >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *David Kellogg >>> *Sent: *Sunday, March 20, 2016 1:33 PM >>> *To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion >>> >>> >>> >>> Rod: >>> >>> >>> >>> Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. >>> Here's >>> >>> the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We ask >>> four >>> >>> questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean speaking >> parent >>> >>> and one English speaking one): >>> >>> >>> >>> a) English: What's this? >>> >>> b) English: Is it a ...? >>> >>> c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) >>> >>> d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) >>> >>> >>> >>> Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the >>> next three >>> >>> years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. >>> That it >>> >>> contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors but >>> meant >> to >>> >>> be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. That the >>> letters >> are >>> >>> not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. That the symbols >>> encode >>> >>> settings, characters, and problems. That the problems can only be >>> solved >> by >>> >>> means of dialogue, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not >>> concentrate >> on >>> >>> the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time I did it, the >> child >>> >>> literally could not look away from it! You could see that although >>> the >>> >>> child had no idea what was being said, the child was might just be >> starting >>> >>> to think some proto-language equivalent of "What's this?" "Is it >>> a...?" >> "Yi >>> >>> got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And after a minute or so, the child >>> looked >>> >>> up, as if to see whether the large person making so much noise >>> might be >>> >>> thinking something along those lines too. >>> >>> >>> >>> So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all >>> whether >>> >>> the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, the >> underlying >>> >>> semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it seems that >>> there's >> only >>> >>> text when something has been selected from the material setting by >>> some >>> >>> human consciousness or consciousnesses for semiotic transformation; >> there's >>> >>> only text when there some kind of "metaphor" (gestural, >>> phonological, >>> >>> lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS >>> act of >>> >>> selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and >>> it's >>> >>> premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example I >>> >>> wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for >>> the >>> >>> second. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural >>> >>> context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a >>> cline of >>> >>> instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a >>> context of >>> >>> situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the end I'm >>> at right >>> >>> now. At the other, we have the relationship between a context of >>> culture >>> >>> (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language system (again, >>> Halliday). >> I >>> >>> gather that's the end at which the KEEP and the Community >>> Development >>> >>> projects in Micronesia and the Delinquency Research plans are >>> working. >> But >>> >>> I don't see how "activity" or "behaviour" can ever realize context, >> unless >>> >>> it is semiotic activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we >>> might as >>> >>> well start looking around for text. That's where the garlic and >>> ginger >> is. >>> >>> >>> >>> (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole >>> problem of >>> >>> anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, >>> >>> and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old >>> hand. Can >>> >>> you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do >>> next?) >>> >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> Macquarie University >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < >>> >>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context >>>> since >>> my >>> >>>> own understanding of this term is in the context of trying to >> understand >>> >>>> how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by social and >> physical >>> >>>> contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to >>> >>>> separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' thought process >> apart >>> >>>> from the interactions in which it can occur. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which >>>> concepts >> have >>> >>>> their meanings is particularly relevant here. The intersubjectivity >>> >>>> available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a family is of a >> different >>> >>>> order to that available between otherwise unconnected speakers of >>>> the >>> >>>> 'same' language. Where one is rooted in a history of shared >>>> experiences >>> in >>> >>>> common contexts the other is rooted in a history of more or less >>> >>>> abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from >>>> above' >>> >>>> rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never >>> >>>> completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of >>>> this is >>> that >>> >>>> intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a conversation >>> rather >>> >>>> than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is not an achieved >>>> end but >> a >>> >>>> means towards sharing understanding (I like the idea that the word >>> >>>> understanding is misunderstood - 'under' deriving from the same >>>> root as >>> >>>> 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' - to understand >> something >>> >>>> is to stand IN it). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or >>>> watching >>> >>>> films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is >>>> importantly >>> >>>> different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting with them, >>>> can >>> enrich >>> >>>> our personal understanding by exposing us to different ways of >>>> thinking >>> but >>> >>>> I think we have to recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of >>>> interacting >> has >>> to >>> >>>> be understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest >> knowing >>> >>>> of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal >>>> abstractions of >>> >>>> philosophical thought-play. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> All the best, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Rod >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> >>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> >>>> Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 >>> >>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. >>> >>>> I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little >>>> bunch of >>> us >>> >>>> has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of >>>> human >>> life. >>> >>>> But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can >>> understand >>> >>>> each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has >>>> appropriated >>> >>>> zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared activity >>>> and the >>> law >>> >>>> of genetic development. >>> >>>> I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in >>> >>>> appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that >>>> in >> the >>> >>>> early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as >>> >>>> 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything >>>> I read >>> in >>> >>>> your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and >>>> used in >>> just >>> >>>> this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning >>>> attached >> to >>> >>>> "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a >>> >>>> mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. >> Achieving >>> >>>> interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. >>>> But >> on >>> >>>> the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the >>>> larger >>> >>>> system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as >>>> if a >>> >>>> concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is >> already >>> >>>> assimilated. >>> >>>> Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you >> were >>> >>>> using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning >>>> than >> I >>> >>>> would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves >> co-actors >>> >>>> feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I >> don't >>> >>>> even know it means to "feel values." >>> >>>> Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out >>>> to be >> in >>> >>>> sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration >>>> (my >>> >>>> preferred term, rather than "joint >>> >>>> action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as >>> >>>> cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they >>>> are >>> >>>> rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. >>> >>>> I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating >>>> different >>> >>>> concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by >>>> means of >>> >>>> having a "center of commonality." >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Andy >>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>> >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> >>>> On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: >>> >>>>> Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought >>> >>>>> that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks >>>>> in >>> >>>>> each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the >>>>> infrequency >>> >>>>> of common citations). As described in our article, we and >>>>> several of >>> >>>>> our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT >>> >>>>> concepts in our research and intervention programs. >>> >>>>> As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP >>>>> project, >>> >>>>> Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with >>>>> Greenfield. >>> >>>>> Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too >>>>> would >> be >>> >>>>> interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite >>>>> direction. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems >>>>> with >>> >>>>> Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to >>>>> be a >>> >>>>> universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol >>>>> for >>> >>>>> change. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, >>> >>>>> psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in >>>>> psychology >>> >>>>> of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how >>>>> the >>> >>>>> commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that >> commonality >>> >>>>> with developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. >>> >>>>> Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the >>> >>>>> process. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Cliff >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was >> not >>> >>>>>> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other >>> >>>>>> papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely >>> >>>>>> describing the field, and how it evolved from community to >>>>>> cultural >>> >>>>>> community psychology. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT >>> >>>>>> literature had influenced the development of community psychology >>> >>>>>> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then >>>>>> found >>> >>>>>> clear references to these influences, which even meant the >>>>>> delay of >>> >>>>>> the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the important >> input >>> >>>>>> that Vygotsky's publications meant for the project. But then I >>> >>>>>> wondered on what had been other sources. What were other >> foundational >>> >>>>>> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them in >> part >>> >>>>>> because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT >>>>>> gives >>> >>>>>> input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) >>>>>> inputs >> in >>> >>>>>> the other direction. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of >>>>>> commonality >>> >>>>>> in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, >>>>>> mentions >>> >>>>>> to research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your >> paper, >>> >>>>>> Delta theory is mentioned as a move forward towards >>>>>> integration. In >>> >>>>>> the case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a >>> >>>>>> scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism and the >>> >>>>>> sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a very brief first >>> >>>>>> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. >> This >>> >>>>>> sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a central >>> >>>>>> source. Again, here I would love to hear what other insights/ >>>>>> sources >>> >>>>>> are involved that may provide new insights to those more >>>>>> familiar to >>> >>>>>> CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>> >>>>>> Alfredo >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>> >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >>>>>> on behalf of mike cole >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 >>> >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by >>> >>>>>> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of >>>>>> MCA. >>> >>>>>> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff >>>>>> saw as >>> >>>>>> people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before >>>>>> this >>> >>>>>> part of the discussion could take place. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural >> Community >>> >>>>>> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach >>>>>> referred >>> >>>>>> to often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an >>>>>> acronym >>> >>>>>> for cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a >>> >>>>>> tradition of chatting here about the ideas in papers that >>>>>> sample our >>> >>>>>> different interests. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an >>> >>>>>> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May >>>>>> it be >>> >>>>>> celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth >> enhancing >>> >>>>>> communication. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> get your copy at >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be >>> >>>>>> interested. >>> >>>>>> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> mike >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science >>>>>> with an >>> >>>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. >>> >>>>> Professor Emeritus >>> >>>>> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA >>> >>>>> Division 27) >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> University of Hawai'i >>> >>>>> Department of Psychology >>> >>>>> 2530 Dole Street >>> >>>>> Honolulu, HI 96822 >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ________________________________ >>> >>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< >>> >>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27) University of Hawai?i Department of Psychology 2530 Dole Street Honolulu, HI 96822 From cliffo@hawaii.edu Mon Mar 21 16:03:25 2016 From: cliffo@hawaii.edu (Cliff O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:03:25 -1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> <56ef1766.6c42420a.ad4c.ffffea60@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <2CBE9F0B-B2B2-499B-A4AA-4C04E32A4E07@hawaii.edu> The many points raised in this discussion are certainly different than those raised among community psychologists. That's a good thing! They expand my thinking as I consider other perspectives. I am particularly interested in learning about how your perspectives on context, or which comes first context or text, would have changed any of the community interventions we presented in our article. Would you have done anything differently in any one of them? Or perhaps interpreted our outcomes differently? Cliff From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Mar 21 17:27:17 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:27:17 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues. Mike: I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of foreground and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the process of an event becoming a semantic event. I was under the influence of the discussion of fon/phonem and Rod's questions about which comes first. My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced it pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there is no name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue of sharing is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not talking aloud, with whom was I sharing an event being woven into a semantic event? The semantic event happened, but the sharing? It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should find its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should occur mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this list represents, seems non-accidental. mike PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around three uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about and speak to David's characterization of my views. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I understand > it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in systems of concepts > and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant there is > no significant distinction between the attention and activity and the > knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words allow > multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can exist outside > any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but whether we > think lived experience is reduced or elevated to shareable knowledge, that > knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality by > 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends on every > hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared branches with private > roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared directly, in > shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' ability > to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It may be > possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing into words > (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or elevation) but this > translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > > I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, a > generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, even if it > has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking about > climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a flash of > lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! > > It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a > semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants 'discover' > that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated into > 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the experience of > 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I am still very > uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can be thought of as > semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a situation which has been > shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with anything > as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of 'Ah, I know what to > expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of experience, > elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. > > It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a chance of > sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with these > posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what feels > to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > Rod: > > I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a > cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech community > as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a language) > and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and > the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be > semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between > context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski > describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" > in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about > distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of > situation. > > Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the > relationship between context of culture and context of situation as being > like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by two > different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in > timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena which I > will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena which I > will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a > context of situation, we find things the other way around: the > interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get > foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and therefore > backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the > extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is accidental is > the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the > pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, > incidental. > > Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I > think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: taken > too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason > why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a > SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather > rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture is > ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even > precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than the > sum total of contexts of situations. > > But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do > create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and also > Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we > should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of > instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > > So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a text, > so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the recording > thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call discourse, but > such is the conservatism of academics we tend to associate text with > writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that were text, > though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and they > don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a > setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through > communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in > the snow. > > And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of > everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: > it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that > it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some > cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally reducible > to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or "activity", > or "production". > > It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not > activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not production > because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of > commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's > value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one way > the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of culture > is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume that > since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which subtends > them must be shared as well. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > David, > > > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of > > the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in > > the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It > > is when people connect their interests in some way and share meanings > > that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said > > anything when you presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the > > second presentation would be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, > > this thing that we do' and this feeling of shared experience does seem > > to play an important part in infants' assisted ability to weave > > public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. > > > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of > > culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and > > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are > > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns > > and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in > Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in > > psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, > > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys but > > only if they have played with the toys together - watching the > > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the > > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, > > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the infant's > > knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other researchers or > other toys). > > > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context > > without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a > > pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences > > and guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded > > by a cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the > > concept systems which have evolved out of the patterns in people's > > behaviour. What their caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped > > both by what those caregivers have seen other people do and by a long > > history of people hearing and reading about what other people do and > > have done. I would like to be able to use context to refer to the > > culturally patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice > > particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have > > understood correctly - and what are the chances?) to refer to a > > personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the > > way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into different > > contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word > > for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join > > in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems > > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new > > role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong at > the core of the group. > > > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social > > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument > > that infant development has to be understood in terms of interwoven > > processes of making sense and making relationships - drawing together > > a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > Rod: > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We > > ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean > > speaking parent and one English speaking one): > > > > a) English: What's this? > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next > > three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. > > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors > > but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. > > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the > > problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time > > I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could > > see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child > > was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of > > "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And > > after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the > > large person making so much noise might be thinking something along > those lines too. > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all > > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, > > the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it > > seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the > > material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for > > semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of > > "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act > > of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and > > it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example > > I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for > > the second. > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural > > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline > > of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a > > context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the > > end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a > > context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language > > system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP > > and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the > > Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start > looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem > > of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, > > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. > > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do > > next?) > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context > > > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying > > > to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by > > > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here > > > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' > > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts > > > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a > > > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise > > > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in > > > a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is > > > rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) > > > which refer to > > experiences but 'from above' > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this > > > is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a > > > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is > > > not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I > > > like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' > > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than > 'below' > > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is > > > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting > > > with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to > > > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that > > > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a > > > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived > > > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > > > philosophical > > thought-play. > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch > > > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects > > > of > > human life. > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC > > > has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, > > > shared activity and the law of genetic development. > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in > > > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced > > > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything > > > I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood > > > and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss > > > the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, > > > originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can > > > index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only > > > achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since > > > the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of > > > practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept > > > can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > assimilated. > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you > > > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different > > > meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity > > > involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same > > > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to > > > be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, > > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they > > > are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation > > > by means of having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks > > > > in each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the > > > > infrequency of common citations). As described in our article, we > > > > and several of our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and > > > > have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with > > Greenfield. > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too > > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > > > > opposite > > direction. > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems > > > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts > > > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the > > > > symbol for change. > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in > > > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to > > > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form > > > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and > > neuro-psychology. > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > > > process. > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > > > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the > > > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and > > > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community > > > >> to cultural community psychology. > > > >> > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then > > > >> found clear references to these influences, which even meant the > > > >> delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the > > > >> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the > > > >> project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What > > > >> were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be > > > >> interested to know about them in part because, while the paper > > > >> discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would > > > >> like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other > direction. > > > >> > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however > > > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a > > > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was > > > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on > > > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory > > > >> (I just had a very brief first > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to > > > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta > theory. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Alfredo > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > >> > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > >> > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw > > > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before > > > >> this part of the discussion could take place. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only > > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, > > > >> but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas > > > >> in papers that sample our different interests. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it > > > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > > > >> enhancing communication. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> get your copy at > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > > >> interested. > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> mike > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > > > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > > Division 27) > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > 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]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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. > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Mar 21 17:32:04 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:32:04 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Metaphors of context as a rope, regarding the discussion on con-text, fon/phoneme, climate/weather or not mike On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:27 PM, mike cole wrote: > Dear Colleagues. > > Mike: > > I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of foreground > and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the process of an event > becoming a semantic event. I was under the influence of the discussion of > fon/phonem and Rod's questions about which comes first. > > > > My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced it > pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there is no > name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue of sharing > is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not talking aloud, with > whom was I sharing an event being woven into a semantic event? The semantic > event happened, but the sharing? > > > > It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should find > its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. > > > > Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should occur > mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this list > represents, seems non-accidental. > > > > mike > > > > PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around three > uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of > origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about and > speak to David's characterization of my views. > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > >> This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I understand >> it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in systems of concepts >> and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant there is >> no significant distinction between the attention and activity and the >> knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words allow >> multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can exist outside >> any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but whether we >> think lived experience is reduced or elevated to shareable knowledge, that >> knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality by >> 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends on every >> hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared branches with private >> roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared directly, in >> shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' ability >> to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It may be >> possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing into words >> (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or elevation) but this >> translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. >> >> I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, a >> generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, even if it >> has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking about >> climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a flash of >> lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! >> >> It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a >> semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants 'discover' >> that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated into >> 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the experience of >> 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I am still very >> uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can be thought of as >> semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a situation which has been >> shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with anything >> as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of 'Ah, I know what to >> expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of experience, >> elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. >> >> It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a chance >> of sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with >> these posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what >> feels to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. >> >> All the best, >> >> Rod >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >> Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? >> >> Rod: >> >> I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a >> cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech community >> as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a language) >> and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and >> the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be >> semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between >> context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski >> describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" >> in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about >> distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of >> situation. >> >> Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the >> relationship between context of culture and context of situation as being >> like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by two >> different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in >> timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena which I >> will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena which I >> will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a >> context of situation, we find things the other way around: the >> interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get >> foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and therefore >> backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and >> weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the >> extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is accidental is >> the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the >> pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, >> incidental. >> >> Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I >> think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with >> McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: taken >> too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason >> why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a >> SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather >> rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture is >> ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even >> precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than the >> sum total of contexts of situations. >> >> But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do >> create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and also >> Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we >> should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of >> instantiation as easily as we do at the other. >> >> So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a >> text, so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the >> recording thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call >> discourse, but such is the conservatism of academics we tend to associate >> text with writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that were >> text, though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and they >> don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a >> setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through >> communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in >> the snow. >> >> And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of >> everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: >> it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that >> it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some >> cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally reducible >> to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or "activity", >> or "production". >> >> It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not >> activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not production >> because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of >> commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's >> value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one way >> the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of culture >> is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume that >> since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which subtends >> them must be shared as well. >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < >> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> > David, >> > >> > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of >> > the Tharp and O'Donnell article. >> > >> > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in >> > the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It >> > is when people connect their interests in some way and share meanings >> > that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said >> > anything when you presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the >> > second presentation would be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, >> > this thing that we do' and this feeling of shared experience does seem >> > to play an important part in infants' assisted ability to weave >> > public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. >> > >> > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of >> > culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and >> > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are >> > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns >> > and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in >> Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. >> > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding >> > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in >> > psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, >> > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to >> > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys but >> > only if they have played with the toys together - watching the >> > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the >> > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, >> > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the infant's >> > knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other researchers or >> other toys). >> > >> > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context >> > without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a >> > pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences >> > and guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded >> > by a cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the >> > concept systems which have evolved out of the patterns in people's >> > behaviour. What their caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped >> > both by what those caregivers have seen other people do and by a long >> > history of people hearing and reading about what other people do and >> > have done. I would like to be able to use context to refer to the >> > culturally patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice >> > particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have >> > understood correctly - and what are the chances?) to refer to a >> > personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the >> > way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into different >> > contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word >> > for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join >> > in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems >> > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new >> > role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong >> at the core of the group. >> > >> > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social >> > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would >> > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument >> > that infant development has to be understood in terms of interwoven >> > processes of making sense and making relationships - drawing together >> > a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. >> > >> > All the best, >> > >> > Rod >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >> > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion >> > >> > Rod: >> > >> > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. >> > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We >> > ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean >> > speaking parent and one English speaking one): >> > >> > a) English: What's this? >> > b) English: Is it a ...? >> > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) >> > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) >> > >> > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next >> > three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. >> > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors >> > but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. >> > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. >> > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the >> > problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. >> > >> > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not >> > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time >> > I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could >> > see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child >> > was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of >> > "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And >> > after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the >> > large person making so much noise might be thinking something along >> those lines too. >> > >> > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all >> > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, >> > the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it >> > seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the >> > material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for >> > semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of >> > "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, >> > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act >> > of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and >> > it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example >> > I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for >> > the second. >> > >> > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural >> > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline >> > of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a >> > context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the >> > end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a >> > context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language >> > system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP >> > and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the >> > Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" >> > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic >> > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start >> looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. >> > >> > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem >> > of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, >> > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. >> > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do >> > next?) >> > >> > David Kellogg >> > Macquarie University >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < >> > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: >> > >> > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context >> > > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying >> > > to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by >> > > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here >> > > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' >> > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. >> > > >> > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts >> > > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The >> > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a >> > > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise >> > > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in >> > > a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is >> > > rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) >> > > which refer to >> > experiences but 'from above' >> > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never >> > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this >> > > is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a >> > > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is >> > > not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I >> > > like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' >> > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather >> than 'below' >> > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). >> > > >> > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or >> > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is >> > > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting >> > > with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to >> > > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that >> > > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a >> > > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived >> > > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of >> > > philosophical >> > thought-play. >> > > >> > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. >> > > >> > > All the best, >> > > >> > > Rod >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 >> > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion >> > > >> > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. >> > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch >> > > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects >> > > of >> > human life. >> > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can >> > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC >> > > has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, >> > > shared activity and the law of genetic development. >> > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in >> > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in >> > > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced >> > > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything >> > > I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood >> > > and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss >> > > the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, >> > > originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can >> > > index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only >> > > achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since >> > > the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of >> > > practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept >> > > can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already >> assimilated. >> > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you >> > > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different >> > > meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity >> > > involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same >> > > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." >> > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to >> > > be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, >> > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint >> > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as >> > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they >> > > are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. >> > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating >> > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation >> > > by means of having a "center of commonality." >> > > >> > > Andy >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > *Andy Blunden* >> > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: >> > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought >> > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks >> > > > in each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the >> > > > infrequency of common citations). As described in our article, we >> > > > and several of our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and >> > > > have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. >> > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP >> > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with >> > Greenfield. >> > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too >> > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the >> > > > opposite >> > direction. >> > > > >> > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems >> > > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts >> > > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the >> > > > symbol for change. >> > > > >> > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, >> > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in >> > > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to >> > > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form >> > > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and >> > neuro-psychology. >> > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the >> > > > process. >> > > > >> > > > Cliff >> > > > >> > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was >> > > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the >> > > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and >> > > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community >> > > >> to cultural community psychology. >> > > >> >> > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT >> > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology >> > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then >> > > >> found clear references to these influences, which even meant the >> > > >> delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the >> > > >> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the >> > > >> project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What >> > > >> were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be >> > > >> interested to know about them in part because, while the paper >> > > >> discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would >> > > >> like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other >> direction. >> > > >> >> > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of >> > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however >> > > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and >> > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a >> > > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was >> > > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on >> > > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory >> > > >> (I just had a very brief first >> > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. >> > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a >> > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other >> > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to >> > > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta >> theory. >> > > >> >> > > >> Thanks, >> > > >> Alfredo >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> ________________________________________ >> > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> > > >> on behalf of mike cole >> > > >> >> > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 >> > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion >> > > >> >> > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by >> > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of >> MCA. >> > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw >> > > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before >> > > >> this part of the discussion could take place. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural >> > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the >> > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only >> > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, >> > > >> but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas >> > > >> in papers that sample our different interests. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an >> > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it >> > > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth >> > > >> enhancing communication. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> get your copy at >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be >> > > >> interested. >> > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> mike >> > > >> >> > > >> -- >> > > >> >> > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with >> > > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> > > > >> > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. >> > > > Professor Emeritus >> > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA >> > > > Division 27) >> > > > >> > > > University of Hawai'i >> > > > Department of Psychology >> > > > 2530 Dole Street >> > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > ________________________________ >> > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< >> > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >> > > >> > > 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]< >> > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >> > >> > 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]< >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >> >> 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. >> >> > > > -- > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ropes.doc Type: application/msword Size: 27136 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160321/21bc2b34/attachment.doc From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Mar 21 18:03:52 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:03:52 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: <2CBE9F0B-B2B2-499B-A4AA-4C04E32A4E07@hawaii.edu> References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> <56ef1766.6c42420a.ad4c.ffffea60@mx.google.com> <2CBE9F0B-B2B2-499B-A4AA-4C04E32A4E07@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: <56f09a28.4d48620a.24903.7d1b@mx.google.com> Cliff, The wide ranging exploration and questions concerning text and context overlap with your questions on the beneficial results of finding common ground using specific terms such as [activity setting, intersubjectivity, and joint action]. James Ma took a turn questioning if text/context can be answered within a causal sequence? Alfredo then, in his turn, suggested an even *better* question concerning the epistemology the epistemology posing the question in just those terms of *before or after*. He says when we put the question in just those terms we are already assuming that there must be a temporal delay between these two somethings and suggests a 3rd possibility is that they arise simultaneously. His next point is that any one of the 3 *possibilities* already begin from a view of the world as a *set* of *substances* that can be *ordered temporally* or sequentially. Some substance being figure while the other substance being background. Now Alfredo invites us to travel towards another way of relating to questions of temporality that suggest these questions of whappens before and what happens other make *no sense* From this alternative way of relating to epistemology the question changes to : ?What kind of historical unfolding phenomenon leads to [a travelling metaphor] just THIS way of asking the text/context relational question? Then what is *specified* in particular is the historical conditions that *allow* the existence of anything like the text/context question. Alfredo calls this an ecological approach or *way* and points to Bateson and Birdwhistle discussing this way of exploring context. I mention these turn taking moves in the conversation of James and Alfredo as examples of what is occurring as your article keeps opening onto other vistas or horizons and other epistemologies as ways of understanding theory and practice. These differing ways of travelling is the context in which I return to your question if any of these current openings would have changed any of the community interventions presented in your article? Following David Kellogg I believe that the community interventions presented are text presentations and to say this may be moving within a differing meaning of *sense* that asks us to leave the generality of activity settings to moving within particular kinds of activity settings that highlight sense and meaning rather than highlight activity settings. When your article says that culture is ?shared meaning? David is suggesting this way of understanding culture is therefore metaphorical semantic understanding. Cliff, in the 2012 article you sent says you expanded the scope of activity settings towards *all human behaviour and experience* and proposed this theory of activity settings as guiding community strategies for change. Through shared experiences, participants develop common experiences. Activity setting theory unifies the objective and subjective by showing how activity *intersubjectively develops. The higher the level [can we say the sense] of intersubjectivity the higher the sense of community which translates as sense of belonging. [Seymour Sarason]. You differentiate two kinds of feelings of belonging. A person can feel a sense of belonging to school teams or neighbourhood without a high degree of intersubjectivity. They share a sense of community without engaging in shared activities with other members of the community. However, intersubjectivity CAN *only* develop through shared activities with others. THIS theory therefore posits intersubjectivity as *key* to well being [which goes beyond mental health focus]. You then mention that the more experiences people have in common [including language and cultural traditions] the more likely for intersubjectivity to develop. Intersubjectivity can only be *high* among members who participate in common activity settings. Therefore cultural community psychology posits the key focus of development to be the generation and germinating of intersubjectivity through activity settings. The creation of activity settings FOR intentionally developing intersubjectivity and the *belief* that with high intersubjectivity comes well being. Cliff, I recognize that this approach [way of travelling] - if persuasive - will create settings in which the focus on intersubjectivity [as a metaphor] will emerge and be validated as occurring within these settings. I also acknowledge that *fields* and *archives* may develop alongside this theory as disciplinary ways of travelling together. This is a valid way to travel and if persuasive enough the current focus on objectivity or subjectivity may shift to emphasizing intersubjectivity. However, I would agree with David who suggests that this way of travelling together can also be approached through a theory of forming semantic webs [metaphor of weaving threads]. The term *intersubjectivity* has multiple other meanings and ways of understanding developing intersubjectivity. These multiple meanings of intersubjectivity emerge within a historical horizon of understanding and will converge and diverge in relation to the sense of intersubjectivity presented in this article. I would focus on this process of historical translation as another aspect of developing cultural community psychology. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Cliff O'Donnell Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 4:06 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion The many points raised in this discussion are certainly different than those raised among community psychologists. That's a good thing! They expand my thinking as I consider other perspectives. I am particularly interested in learning about how your perspectives on context, or which comes first context or text, would have changed any of the community interventions we presented in our article. Would you have done anything differently in any one of them? Or perhaps interpreted our outcomes differently? Cliff From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Mar 21 18:14:20 2016 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 01:14:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: <2CBE9F0B-B2B2-499B-A4AA-4C04E32A4E07@hawaii.edu> References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> <56ef1766.6c42420a.ad4c.ffffea60@mx.google.com> <2CBE9F0B-B2B2-499B-A4AA-4C04E32A4E07@hawaii.edu> Message-ID: Dear Cliff, Coming late to discussion, and only briefly looking through your paper, the following paragraph caught my eye: "We urged that CC psychologists strengthen this unity by adopting related concepts from CHAT. In CHAT, activity theory informs the analysis of context as activity (e.g., Chaiklin & Lave, 1993 ). In CC, our focus is on the setting of the activity: ? Activity settings arise from the pressures and resources of the larger social system of which the participants are a part? (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988 , p. 73) and incorporate ? cognitive and motoric action itself (activity), as well as the external, environmental, and objective features of the occasion (settings)? (Tharp & Gallimore, p. 72). In CHAT, activity is often analyzed as a system and sometimes as a setting (e.g., Brown & Cole, 2002 ; Lave, 1988 )." One of the formative applications of the (genetic) historical nature of CHAT is to offer explanations (and guidance) for the development of intellectual abilities (e.g. of the participants referred to above) which offers a resource which may not be accounted for in the above description. That is, the activity is also studied in terms of transformation. I am currently endeavouring to put together a paper on various historically expressed construals of CHAT, and it is interesting how this aspect is often overlooked in relation to a reflexive understanding of one's milieu. I am not sure whether this pertains accurately to the emails concerning text and context, but another genetic-historical aspect that is often overlooked is that psychological orientation, or the tentative psychological system (zpd), precedes (genetically) the establishment of stable formations, i.e. the discrete components arising out of a reorganised action. Best, Huw From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Tue Mar 22 01:23:46 2016 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:23:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike, I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we can share an experience with our friends without needing them to be there ('X and Y would love this') - and of course social media allows us to share experiences with remote friends, though I am not sure that the pleasure of sharing is of quite the same order - maybe it is more so for digital natives. My interest in 'which comes first' is really ontological - I would have to argue that for any individual person context always comes first because we are born into a pre-existing (albeit fluid) culture. I am also inclined to go along with Steven Mithen's contention (e.g. in 'The Singing Neanderthals') that interactions and relations, first expressed through movements and vocalisations, must have preceded any form of language. An image which I particularly like is of a mountain rising out of lush, verdant valleys. Down in the valleys life is abundant, rich and complicated but as one ascends the mountain the vegetation gives way to ice and snow. The air becomes clear and cold and one can see for miles. Climbing is a very direct form of abstraction, lifting oneself out of the muddle of context to be able to see further and more clearly. But you can't live up there for long. Very young children live in the foothills but they don't have to find their own ways up to higher places because they are able to see their parents and siblings making the ascent. For me it is a particular challenge to try to imagine what it is like to be a two-year-old, not yet able to lift oneself out of one's immediate context to think 'about' things but instead able to think in and with the things and people and interactions that make up one's environment or context. I would argue that it is easy to forget this 'withness thinking' as John Shotter calls it, once thought is marshalled by more or less shared concept systems. Even the most abstract of thinkers still have to come down the mountain sometimes to engage with other people, to eat, wash and sleep and these contexts of lived practice are also internalised, like the opinions of our friends, and become part of our own relationships with our contexts. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: 22 March 2016 00:27 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? Dear Colleagues. Mike: I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of foreground and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the process of an event becoming a semantic event. I was under the influence of the discussion of fon/phonem and Rod's questions about which comes first. My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced it pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there is no name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue of sharing is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not talking aloud, with whom was I sharing an event being woven into a semantic event? The semantic event happened, but the sharing? It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should find its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should occur mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this list represents, seems non-accidental. mike PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around three uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about and speak to David's characterization of my views. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I understand > it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in systems of concepts > and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant there is > no significant distinction between the attention and activity and the > knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words allow > multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can exist outside > any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but whether we > think lived experience is reduced or elevated to shareable knowledge, that > knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality by > 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends on every > hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared branches with private > roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared directly, in > shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' ability > to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It may be > possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing into words > (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or elevation) but this > translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > > I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, a > generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, even if it > has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking about > climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a flash of > lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! > > It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a > semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants 'discover' > that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated into > 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the experience of > 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I am still very > uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can be thought of as > semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a situation which has been > shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with anything > as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of 'Ah, I know what to > expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of experience, > elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. > > It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a chance of > sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with these > posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what feels > to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > Rod: > > I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a > cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech community > as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a language) > and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and > the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be > semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between > context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski > describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" > in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about > distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of > situation. > > Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the > relationship between context of culture and context of situation as being > like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by two > different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in > timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena which I > will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena which I > will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a > context of situation, we find things the other way around: the > interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get > foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and therefore > backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the > extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is accidental is > the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the > pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, > incidental. > > Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I > think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: taken > too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason > why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a > SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather > rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture is > ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even > precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than the > sum total of contexts of situations. > > But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do > create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and also > Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we > should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of > instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > > So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a text, > so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the recording > thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call discourse, but > such is the conservatism of academics we tend to associate text with > writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that were text, > though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and they > don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a > setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through > communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in > the snow. > > And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of > everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: > it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that > it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some > cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally reducible > to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or "activity", > or "production". > > It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not > activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not production > because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of > commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's > value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one way > the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of culture > is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume that > since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which subtends > them must be shared as well. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > David, > > > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of > > the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in > > the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It > > is when people connect their interests in some way and share meanings > > that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said > > anything when you presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the > > second presentation would be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, > > this thing that we do' and this feeling of shared experience does seem > > to play an important part in infants' assisted ability to weave > > public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. > > > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of > > culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and > > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are > > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns > > and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in > Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in > > psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, > > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys but > > only if they have played with the toys together - watching the > > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the > > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, > > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the infant's > > knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other researchers or > other toys). > > > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context > > without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a > > pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences > > and guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded > > by a cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the > > concept systems which have evolved out of the patterns in people's > > behaviour. What their caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped > > both by what those caregivers have seen other people do and by a long > > history of people hearing and reading about what other people do and > > have done. I would like to be able to use context to refer to the > > culturally patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice > > particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have > > understood correctly - and what are the chances?) to refer to a > > personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the > > way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into different > > contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word > > for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join > > in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems > > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new > > role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong at > the core of the group. > > > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social > > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument > > that infant development has to be understood in terms of interwoven > > processes of making sense and making relationships - drawing together > > a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > Rod: > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We > > ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean > > speaking parent and one English speaking one): > > > > a) English: What's this? > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next > > three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. > > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors > > but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. > > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the > > problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time > > I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could > > see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child > > was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of > > "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And > > after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the > > large person making so much noise might be thinking something along > those lines too. > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all > > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, > > the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it > > seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the > > material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for > > semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of > > "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act > > of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and > > it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example > > I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for > > the second. > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural > > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline > > of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a > > context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the > > end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a > > context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language > > system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP > > and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the > > Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start > looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem > > of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, > > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. > > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do > > next?) > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context > > > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying > > > to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by > > > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here > > > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' > > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts > > > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a > > > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise > > > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in > > > a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is > > > rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) > > > which refer to > > experiences but 'from above' > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this > > > is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a > > > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is > > > not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I > > > like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' > > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than > 'below' > > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is > > > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting > > > with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to > > > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that > > > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a > > > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived > > > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > > > philosophical > > thought-play. > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch > > > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects > > > of > > human life. > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC > > > has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, > > > shared activity and the law of genetic development. > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in > > > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced > > > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything > > > I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood > > > and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss > > > the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, > > > originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can > > > index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only > > > achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since > > > the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of > > > practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept > > > can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > assimilated. > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you > > > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different > > > meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity > > > involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same > > > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to > > > be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, > > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they > > > are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation > > > by means of having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks > > > > in each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the > > > > infrequency of common citations). As described in our article, we > > > > and several of our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and > > > > have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with > > Greenfield. > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too > > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > > > > opposite > > direction. > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems > > > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts > > > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the > > > > symbol for change. > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in > > > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to > > > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form > > > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and > > neuro-psychology. > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > > > process. > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > > > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the > > > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and > > > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community > > > >> to cultural community psychology. > > > >> > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then > > > >> found clear references to these influences, which even meant the > > > >> delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the > > > >> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the > > > >> project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What > > > >> were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be > > > >> interested to know about them in part because, while the paper > > > >> discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would > > > >> like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other > direction. > > > >> > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however > > > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a > > > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was > > > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on > > > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory > > > >> (I just had a very brief first > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to > > > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta > theory. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Alfredo > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > >> > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > >> > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw > > > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before > > > >> this part of the discussion could take place. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only > > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, > > > >> but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas > > > >> in papers that sample our different interests. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it > > > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > > > >> enhancing communication. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> get your copy at > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > > >> interested. > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> mike > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > > > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > > Division 27) > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > 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]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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. > > -- 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 Mar 22 08:29:54 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:29:54 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56f16526.5a46620a.731ba.ffffac62@mx.google.com> Rod, A very moving metaphor that carried me within lived experience AND concept systems. This metaphor also allows me to approach you and our article for discussion in a different *light*. [or should I say different *forms* of light?] Mike [as] an accomplished traveller who with others [and among others] participates in a culture of sharing concept systems and delights in ascending mountains to attain the places of clarity and cool reason from which to as/certain the valley below. This place of *about* from which we may look *back* upon the verdant multiformed valley below. I will add an image of the sign of Capricorn to your metaphor. Capricorn is under [or with] the sign of the *fishgoat*. The fishgoat must FIRST descend into the depths of existence before ascending to the spiritual heights. I also will add a question on the shifting movement between [focus] and [periphery]. Learning may often be developing the ability to focus [pay attention, concentrate, move between past, present future] but this may become so dominant an approach to phenomena that we loose sight of life and vitality moving within the periphery. Now this metaphor of focus/periphery boundary marking may indicate that we in modernity have become pre/occupied with focusing and there/fore perceiving the periphery has moved into the background. My question is if we can learn to develop the *art* of fluidly shifting between focus and periphery. Mike noticing the flash of colour illuminating the periphery and then Mike becoming intentionally focused upon ?What is it? Is it a ???? Now in some cultures THIS flash of colour is an illumination OF my ancestor, or an illumination of a divinity as what is ?calling? us to attention but in Mike?s culture of shared meanings he names what is calling him *an oriole*. Mike is travelling within and approaching this flash of colour AS something and giving this something a name. However, this naming [an intentional act] was preceded by a *calling* to focus from the periphery and this calling to focus on phenomena which show up could be given multiple names depending on the particular culture of shared meanings. What seems to me a key question is David?s question. Is this way of travelling together *value tout court* or is travelling [this way] primarily a *production with exchange value*? Cliff explores the development of *fields* as a *space* of shared meanings. I am suggesting a metaphor of [house] as overlapping the metaphor of [fields]. Fields trace a different path for travelling or approaching phenomena. The arena or stage of genetic epistemology which may originate with Kant and transcendental questions as ways to pro/ceed. [emphasis on ?pro?] This is a path through re/presentations that call us by giving names to substances which then accompany as the substances that become already given prior to undertaking our travelling together. We are now moving through shared *fields*. [scientific disciplines] The question then becomes where should we build our dwelling homes? Should humans live primarily upon the mountain peaks of *about* abstracted high above the valleys [or depths] or should we primarily dwell within the valleys and depths and on occasion ascend the mountain? Rod, your metaphor of ascent and descent *trails* or *traces* a wide arc through history [both east and west]. The Tao as [the way]. In the West *spirit* as ascent to the heights. Is this way of expressing [sense] and [meaning] *value* tout court moving within phenomena? Is this way of moving or proceeding more about [calling] than [naming]? Or [being - called]. In other words is calling [as itself] *being* or the things themselves *doing* the calling and then we name these things [as] something? Is Cliff?s article which is an exploration of living within *fields* more generally a way of proceeding [as] a kind of living which occurs *within* genetic epistemology [which we can trace back to Kant]. Is this way [as a particular way of pro/ceding forward and not a general way] which is expressing a *value* actually *a* particular *value*? [tout court]. Is genetic epistemology as a form of existence at its foundational basis actually meta/phorical? Something [as] something else? Transcendental notions [including notions of intersubjectivity] as able to be traced back to Kant as a philosophical practice. A particular path up the mountain but not the mountain itself. Embracing genetic epistemology [as] a way to proceed [through naming phenomena as a way of knowing] but not loosing sight that this way of focusing through naming occurs by bringing the periphery that is calling us [for example a flash of colour becoming ?an oriole?] into a particular kind of focus. Is it possible to relate to the periphery as a practice of undifferentiated experience travelling with relating through focusing [paying attention to differentiated phenomena]? My bias is to suggest that human being/becoming is a form of travelling together in close proximity to the Neanderthals singing the world [vocal and motor gesture]. We have added complexity but where is the singing today? Intersubjectivity as a phenomena of calling others [joint action, joint attention] prior to being a naming phenomena. Genetic epistemology as a way is already moving [and has moved] in the direction of ascent to *about* and *abstraction* from which we can see with clarity. However, as Rod says, iis it time to bring this way of travelling back to earth to be grounded within the earth or watery depths. Not sure if this is too eccentric and idiosyncratic a reflection but is how I was intersubjectively called to answer or address this community of interpreters. Larry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Rod Parker-Rees Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:27 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? Mike, I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we can share an experience with our friends without needing them to be there ('X and Y would love this') - and of course social media allows us to share experiences with remote friends, though I am not sure that the pleasure of sharing is of quite the same order - maybe it is more so for digital natives. My interest in 'which comes first' is really ontological - I would have to argue that for any individual person context always comes first because we are born into a pre-existing (albeit fluid) culture. I am also inclined to go along with Steven Mithen's contention (e.g. in 'The Singing Neanderthals') that interactions and relations, first expressed through movements and vocalisations, must have preceded any form of language. An image which I particularly like is of a mountain rising out of lush, verdant valleys. Down in the valleys life is abundant, rich and complicated but as one ascends the mountain the vegetation gives way to ice and snow. The air becomes clear and cold and one can see for miles. Climbing is a very direct form of abstraction, lifting oneself out of the muddle of context to be able to see further and more clearly. But you can't live up there for long. Very young children live in the foothills but they don't have to find their own ways up to higher places because they are able to see their parents and siblings making the ascent. For me it is a particular challenge to try to imagine what it is like to be a two-year-old, not yet able to lift oneself out of one's immediate context to think 'about' things but instead able to think in and with the things and people and interactions that make up one's environment or context. I would argue that it is easy to forget this 'withness thinking' as John Shotter calls it, once thought is marshalled by more or less shared concept systems. Even the most abstract of thinkers still have to come down the mountain sometimes to engage with other people, to eat, wash and sleep and these contexts of lived practice are also internalised, like the opinions of our friends, and become part of our own relationships with our contexts. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: 22 March 2016 00:27 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? Dear Colleagues. Mike: I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of foreground and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the process of an event becoming a semantic event. I was under the influence of the discussion of fon/phonem and Rod's questions about which comes first. My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced it pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there is no name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue of sharing is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not talking aloud, with whom was I sharing an event being woven into a semantic event? The semantic event happened, but the sharing? It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should find its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should occur mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this list represents, seems non-accidental. mike PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around three uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about and speak to David's characterization of my views. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I understand > it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in systems of concepts > and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant there is > no significant distinction between the attention and activity and the > knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words allow > multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can exist outside > any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but whether we > think lived experience is reduced or elevated to shareable knowledge, that > knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality by > 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends on every > hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared branches with private > roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared directly, in > shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' ability > to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It may be > possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing into words > (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or elevation) but this > translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > > I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, a > generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, even if it > has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking about > climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a flash of > lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! > > It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a > semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants 'discover' > that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated into > 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the experience of > 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I am still very > uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can be thought of as > semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a situation which has been > shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with anything > as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of 'Ah, I know what to > expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of experience, > elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. > > It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a chance of > sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with these > posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what feels > to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > Rod: > > I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a > cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech community > as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a language) > and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and > the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be > semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between > context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski > describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" > in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about > distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of > situation. > > Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the > relationship between context of culture and context of situation as being > like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by two > different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in > timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena which I > will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena which I > will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a > context of situation, we find things the other way around: the > interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get > foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and therefore > backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the > extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is accidental is > the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the > pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, > incidental. > > Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I > think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: taken > too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason > why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a > SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather > rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture is > ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even > precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than the > sum total of contexts of situations. > > But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do > create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and also > Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we > should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of > instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > > So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a text, > so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the recording > thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call discourse, but > such is the conservatism of academics we tend to associate text with > writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that were text, > though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and they > don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a > setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through > communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in > the snow. > > And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of > everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: > it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that > it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some > cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally reducible > to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or "activity", > or "production". > > It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not > activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not production > because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of > commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's > value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one way > the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of culture > is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume that > since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which subtends > them must be shared as well. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > David, > > > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of > > the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in > > the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It > > is when people connect their interests in some way and share meanings > > that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said > > anything when you presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the > > second presentation would be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, > > this thing that we do' and this feeling of shared experience does seem > > to play an important part in infants' assisted ability to weave > > public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. > > > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of > > culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and > > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are > > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns > > and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in > Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in > > psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, > > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys but > > only if they have played with the toys together - watching the > > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the > > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, > > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the infant's > > knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other researchers or > other toys). > > > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context > > without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a > > pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences > > and guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded > > by a cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the > > concept systems which have evolved out of the patterns in people's > > behaviour. What their caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped > > both by what those caregivers have seen other people do and by a long > > history of people hearing and reading about what other people do and > > have done. I would like to be able to use context to refer to the > > culturally patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice > > particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have > > understood correctly - and what are the chances?) to refer to a > > personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the > > way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into different > > contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word > > for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join > > in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems > > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new > > role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong at > the core of the group. > > > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social > > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument > > that infant development has to be understood in terms of interwoven > > processes of making sense and making relationships - drawing together > > a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > Rod: > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We > > ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean > > speaking parent and one English speaking one): > > > > a) English: What's this? > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next > > three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. > > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors > > but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. > > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the > > problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time > > I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could > > see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child > > was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of > > "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And > > after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the > > large person making so much noise might be thinking something along > those lines too. > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all > > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, > > the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it > > seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the > > material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for > > semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of > > "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act > > of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and > > it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example > > I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for > > the second. > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural > > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline > > of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a > > context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the > > end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a > > context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language > > system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP > > and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the > > Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start > looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem > > of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, > > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. > > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do > > next?) > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context > > > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying > > > to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by > > > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here > > > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' > > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts > > > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a > > > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise > > > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in > > > a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is > > > rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) > > > which refer to > > experiences but 'from above' > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this > > > is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a > > > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is > > > not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I > > > like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' > > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than > 'below' > > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is > > > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting > > > with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to > > > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that > > > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a > > > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived > > > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > > > philosophical > > thought-play. > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch > > > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects > > > of > > human life. > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC > > > has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, > > > shared activity and the law of genetic development. > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in > > > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced > > > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything > > > I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood > > > and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss > > > the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, > > > originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can > > > index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only > > > achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since > > > the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of > > > practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept > > > can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > assimilated. > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you > > > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different > > > meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity > > > involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same > > > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to > > > be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, > > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they > > > are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation > > > by means of having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks > > > > in each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the > > > > infrequency of common citations). As described in our article, we > > > > and several of our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and > > > > have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with > > Greenfield. > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too > > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > > > > opposite > > direction. > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems > > > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts > > > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the > > > > symbol for change. > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in > > > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to > > > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form > > > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and > > neuro-psychology. > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > > > process. > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > > > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the > > > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and > > > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community > > > >> to cultural community psychology. > > > >> > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then > > > >> found clear references to these influences, which even meant the > > > >> delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the > > > >> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the > > > >> project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What > > > >> were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be > > > >> interested to know about them in part because, while the paper > > > >> discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would > > > >> like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other > direction. > > > >> > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however > > > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a > > > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was > > > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on > > > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory > > > >> (I just had a very brief first > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to > > > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta > theory. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Alfredo > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > >> > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > >> > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw > > > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before > > > >> this part of the discussion could take place. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only > > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, > > > >> but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas > > > >> in papers that sample our different interests. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it > > > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > > > >> enhancing communication. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> get your copy at > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > > >> interested. > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> mike > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > > > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > > Division 27) > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > 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]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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. > > -- 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 mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Mar 22 09:14:34 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:14:34 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: <56f16526.5a46620a.731ba.ffffac62@mx.google.com> References: <56f16526.5a46620a.731ba.ffffac62@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Larry-- I could follow at least part of that. Sure is a multi-faceted discussion. I want to ask about your assertion below. However, this naming [an intentional act] was preceded by a *calling* to focus from the periphery and this calling to focus on phenomena which show up could be given multiple names depending on the particular culture of shared meanings. My question is about the term intention. I seem to recall David using the term "conscious" in a similar way. In what sense are you using the phrase, "intentional act?" Didn't feel like i was expecting the flash of orange/yellow light, I was looking at differences among finches. No awareness of search for a word. (Here Rod's important point that I come to the experience with a rich, inescapable, tangle of concepts/words may be so interiorized that it is barely accessible to conscious thought/manipulation. mike On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > Rod, > A very moving metaphor that carried me within lived experience AND concept > systems. This metaphor also allows me to approach you and our article for > discussion in a different *light*. [or should I say different *forms* of > light?] > > Mike [as] an accomplished traveller who with others [and among others] > participates in a culture of sharing concept systems and delights in > ascending mountains to attain the places of clarity and cool reason from > which to as/certain the valley below. > This place of *about* from which we may look *back* upon the verdant > multiformed valley below. > > I will add an image of the sign of Capricorn to your metaphor. Capricorn > is under [or with] the sign of the *fishgoat*. The fishgoat must FIRST > descend into the depths of existence before ascending to the spiritual > heights. > > I also will add a question on the shifting movement between [focus] and > [periphery]. > Learning may often be developing the ability to focus [pay attention, > concentrate, move between past, present future] but this may become so > dominant an approach to phenomena that we loose sight of life and vitality > moving within the periphery. Now this metaphor of focus/periphery boundary > marking may indicate that we in modernity have become pre/occupied with > focusing and there/fore perceiving the periphery has moved into the > background. > My question is if we can learn to develop the *art* of fluidly shifting > between focus and periphery. > Mike noticing the flash of colour illuminating the periphery and then Mike > becoming intentionally focused upon ?What is it? Is it a ???? > > Now in some cultures THIS flash of colour is an illumination OF my > ancestor, or an illumination of a divinity as what is ?calling? us to > attention but in Mike?s culture of shared meanings he names what is > calling him *an oriole*. > > Mike is travelling within and approaching this flash of colour AS > something and giving this something a name. However, this naming [an > intentional act] was preceded by a *calling* to focus from the periphery > and this calling to focus on phenomena which show up could be given > multiple names depending on the particular culture of shared meanings. > > What seems to me a key question is David?s question. Is this way of > travelling together *value tout court* or is travelling [this way] > primarily a *production with exchange value*? > > Cliff explores the development of *fields* as a *space* of shared > meanings. I am suggesting a metaphor of [house] as overlapping the metaphor > of [fields]. Fields trace a different path for travelling or approaching > phenomena. The arena or stage of genetic epistemology which may originate > with Kant and transcendental questions as ways to pro/ceed. [emphasis on > ?pro?] > This is a path through re/presentations that call us by giving names to > substances which then accompany as the substances that become already given > prior to undertaking our travelling together. We are now moving through > shared *fields*. [scientific disciplines] > > The question then becomes where should we build our dwelling homes? > Should humans live primarily upon the mountain peaks of *about* abstracted > high above the valleys [or depths] or should we primarily dwell within the > valleys and depths and on occasion ascend the mountain? > > Rod, your metaphor of ascent and descent *trails* or *traces* a wide arc > through history [both east and west]. The Tao as [the way]. In the West > *spirit* as ascent to the heights. > > Is this way of expressing [sense] and [meaning] *value* tout court moving > within phenomena? Is this way of moving or proceeding more about [calling] > than [naming]? Or [being - called]. In other words is calling [as itself] > *being* or the things themselves *doing* the calling and then we name > these things [as] something? > > Is Cliff?s article which is an exploration of living within *fields* more > generally a way of proceeding [as] a kind of living which occurs *within* > genetic epistemology [which we can trace back to Kant]. > Is this way [as a particular way of pro/ceding forward and not a general > way] which is expressing a *value* actually *a* particular *value*? [tout > court]. > > Is genetic epistemology as a form of existence at its foundational basis > actually meta/phorical? Something [as] something else? Transcendental > notions [including notions of intersubjectivity] as able to be traced back > to Kant as a philosophical practice. A particular path up the mountain but > not the mountain itself. > > Embracing genetic epistemology [as] a way to proceed [through naming > phenomena as a way of knowing] but not loosing sight that this way of > focusing through naming occurs by bringing the periphery that is calling us > [for example a flash of colour becoming ?an oriole?] into a particular > kind of focus. > Is it possible to relate to the periphery as a practice of > undifferentiated experience travelling with relating through focusing > [paying attention to differentiated phenomena]? > My bias is to suggest that human being/becoming is a form of travelling > together in close proximity to the Neanderthals singing the world [vocal > and motor gesture]. We have added complexity but where is the singing today? > Intersubjectivity as a phenomena of calling others [joint action, joint > attention] prior to being a naming phenomena. > Genetic epistemology as a way is already moving [and has moved] in the > direction of ascent to *about* and *abstraction* from which we can see with > clarity. However, as Rod says, iis it time to bring this way of travelling > back to earth to be grounded within the earth or watery depths. > > Not sure if this is too eccentric and idiosyncratic a reflection but is > how I was intersubjectively called to answer or address this community of > interpreters. > Larry > > > > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: Rod Parker-Rees > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:27 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > Mike, > > I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a > culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might > well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we can share an > experience with our friends without needing them to be there ('X and Y > would love this') - and of course social media allows us to share > experiences with remote friends, though I am not sure that the pleasure of > sharing is of quite the same order - maybe it is more so for digital > natives. > > My interest in 'which comes first' is really ontological - I would have to > argue that for any individual person context always comes first because we > are born into a pre-existing (albeit fluid) culture. I am also inclined to > go along with Steven Mithen's contention (e.g. in 'The Singing > Neanderthals') that interactions and relations, first expressed through > movements and vocalisations, must have preceded any form of language. > > An image which I particularly like is of a mountain rising out of lush, > verdant valleys. Down in the valleys life is abundant, rich and complicated > but as one ascends the mountain the vegetation gives way to ice and snow. > The air becomes clear and cold and one can see for miles. Climbing is a > very direct form of abstraction, lifting oneself out of the muddle of > context to be able to see further and more clearly. But you can't live up > there for long. Very young children live in the foothills but they don't > have to find their own ways up to higher places because they are able to > see their parents and siblings making the ascent. > > For me it is a particular challenge to try to imagine what it is like to > be a two-year-old, not yet able to lift oneself out of one's immediate > context to think 'about' things but instead able to think in and with the > things and people and interactions that make up one's environment or > context. I would argue that it is easy to forget this 'withness thinking' > as John Shotter calls it, once thought is marshalled by more or less shared > concept systems. Even the most abstract of thinkers still have to come down > the mountain sometimes to engage with other people, to eat, wash and sleep > and these contexts of lived practice are also internalised, like the > opinions of our friends, and become part of our own relationships with our > contexts. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: 22 March 2016 00:27 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > Dear Colleagues. > > Mike: > > I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of foreground > and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the process of an event > becoming a semantic event. I was under the influence of the discussion of > fon/phonem and Rod's questions about which comes first. > > > > My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced it > pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there is no > name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue of sharing > is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not talking aloud, with > whom was I sharing an event being woven into a semantic event? The semantic > event happened, but the sharing? > > > > It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should find > its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. > > > > Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should occur > mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this list > represents, seems non-accidental. > > > > mike > > > > PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around three > uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of > origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about and > speak to David's characterization of my views. > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I understand > > it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in systems of > concepts > > and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant there > is > > no significant distinction between the attention and activity and the > > knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words allow > > multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can exist > outside > > any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but whether we > > think lived experience is reduced or elevated to shareable knowledge, > that > > knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality by > > 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends on every > > hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared branches with > private > > roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared directly, in > > shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' > ability > > to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It may be > > possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing into words > > (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or elevation) but > this > > translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > > > > I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, a > > generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, even if > it > > has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking about > > climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a flash of > > lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! > > > > It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a > > semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants > 'discover' > > that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated into > > 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the experience of > > 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I am still very > > uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can be thought of as > > semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a situation which has > been > > shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with anything > > as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of 'Ah, I know what > to > > expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of experience, > > elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. > > > > It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a chance > of > > sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with > these > > posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what > feels > > to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > > > Rod: > > > > I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a > > cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech community > > as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a > language) > > and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and > > the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be > > semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between > > context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski > > describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" > > in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about > > distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of > > situation. > > > > Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the > > relationship between context of culture and context of situation as being > > like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by two > > different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in > > timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena which > I > > will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena which > I > > will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a > > context of situation, we find things the other way around: the > > interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get > > foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and > therefore > > backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > > weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the > > extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is accidental > is > > the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the > > pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, > > incidental. > > > > Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I > > think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > > McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: taken > > too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason > > why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a > > SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather > > rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture > is > > ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even > > precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than the > > sum total of contexts of situations. > > > > But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do > > create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and > also > > Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we > > should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of > > instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > > > > So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a > text, > > so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the recording > > thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call discourse, but > > such is the conservatism of academics we tend to associate text with > > writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that were text, > > though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and they > > don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a > > setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through > > communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in > > the snow. > > > > And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of > > everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: > > it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that > > it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some > > cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally reducible > > to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or "activity", > > or "production". > > > > It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not > > activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not > production > > because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of > > commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's > > value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one > way > > the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of > culture > > is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume that > > since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which subtends > > them must be shared as well. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of > > > the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > > > > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in > > > the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It > > > is when people connect their interests in some way and share meanings > > > that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said > > > anything when you presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the > > > second presentation would be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, > > > this thing that we do' and this feeling of shared experience does seem > > > to play an important part in infants' assisted ability to weave > > > public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. > > > > > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of > > > culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and > > > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are > > > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns > > > and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in > > Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > > > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > > > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in > > > psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, > > > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > > > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys but > > > only if they have played with the toys together - watching the > > > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the > > > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, > > > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the infant's > > > knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other researchers or > > other toys). > > > > > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context > > > without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a > > > pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences > > > and guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded > > > by a cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the > > > concept systems which have evolved out of the patterns in people's > > > behaviour. What their caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped > > > both by what those caregivers have seen other people do and by a long > > > history of people hearing and reading about what other people do and > > > have done. I would like to be able to use context to refer to the > > > culturally patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice > > > particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have > > > understood correctly - and what are the chances?) to refer to a > > > personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the > > > way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into different > > > contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word > > > for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join > > > in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems > > > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new > > > role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong > at > > the core of the group. > > > > > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social > > > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > > > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument > > > that infant development has to be understood in terms of interwoven > > > processes of making sense and making relationships - drawing together > > > a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > Rod: > > > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > > > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We > > > ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean > > > speaking parent and one English speaking one): > > > > > > a) English: What's this? > > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next > > > three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. > > > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors > > > but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. > > > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > > > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the > > > problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > > > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > > > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time > > > I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could > > > see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child > > > was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of > > > "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And > > > after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the > > > large person making so much noise might be thinking something along > > those lines too. > > > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all > > > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, > > > the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it > > > seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the > > > material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for > > > semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of > > > "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act > > > of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and > > > it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example > > > I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for > > > the second. > > > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural > > > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline > > > of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a > > > context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the > > > end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a > > > context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language > > > system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP > > > and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the > > > Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > > > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > > > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start > > looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem > > > of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, > > > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. > > > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do > > > next?) > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context > > > > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying > > > > to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by > > > > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here > > > > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an > 'individual' > > > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts > > > > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > > > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a > > > > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise > > > > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in > > > > a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is > > > > rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) > > > > which refer to > > > experiences but 'from above' > > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > > > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this > > > > is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a > > > > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is > > > > not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I > > > > like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' > > > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather > than > > 'below' > > > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is > > > > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting > > > > with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to > > > > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that > > > > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a > > > > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived > > > > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > > > > philosophical > > > thought-play. > > > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch > > > > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects > > > > of > > > human life. > > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC > > > > has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, > > > > shared activity and the law of genetic development. > > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in > > > > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced > > > > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything > > > > I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood > > > > and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss > > > > the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, > > > > originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can > > > > index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only > > > > achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since > > > > the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of > > > > practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept > > > > can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > > assimilated. > > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you > > > > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different > > > > meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity > > > > involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same > > > > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." > > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to > > > > be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, > > > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they > > > > are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > > > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation > > > > by means of having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks > > > > > in each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the > > > > > infrequency of common citations). As described in our article, we > > > > > and several of our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and > > > > > have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with > > > Greenfield. > > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too > > > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > > > > > opposite > > > direction. > > > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems > > > > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts > > > > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the > > > > > symbol for change. > > > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in > > > > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to > > > > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form > > > > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and > > > neuro-psychology. > > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > > > > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the > > > > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and > > > > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community > > > > >> to cultural community psychology. > > > > >> > > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > > > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then > > > > >> found clear references to these influences, which even meant the > > > > >> delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the > > > > >> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the > > > > >> project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What > > > > >> were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be > > > > >> interested to know about them in part because, while the paper > > > > >> discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would > > > > >> like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other > > direction. > > > > >> > > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however > > > > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > > > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a > > > > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was > > > > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on > > > > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory > > > > >> (I just had a very brief first > > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > > > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > > > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to > > > > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta > > theory. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > > >> > > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > > >> > > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > > > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of > MCA. > > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw > > > > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before > > > > >> this part of the discussion could take place. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > > > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only > > > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, > > > > >> but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas > > > > >> in papers that sample our different interests. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it > > > > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > > > > >> enhancing communication. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> get your copy at > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > > > >> interested. > > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> mike > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> > > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > > > > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > > > Division 27) > > > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > > > 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]< > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > 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]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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. > > > > > > > -- > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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. > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Mar 22 09:29:07 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:29:07 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is very much along the lines of what I was thinking Rod: *I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we can share an experience with our friends without needing them to be there ('X and Y would love this').* Except, i started to think, I can also share with myself, mediated by that same system of concepts. I can stand there and, post facto, think, "Gee, its sure rare to see an oriole" and think about last time I saw one there, or remind myself to get some grape jelly to see if I can entice more to come visit. And I can sure think about telling my wife when I go back into the house and the pleasure she will get from knowing we had a distinguished visitor. The internal dialogue of consciousness available to an adult is sort of like sharing with oneself over time. Dialogic imagination? mike On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > Mike, > > I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a > culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might > well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we can share an > experience with our friends without needing them to be there ('X and Y > would love this') - and of course social media allows us to share > experiences with remote friends, though I am not sure that the pleasure of > sharing is of quite the same order - maybe it is more so for digital > natives. > > My interest in 'which comes first' is really ontological - I would have to > argue that for any individual person context always comes first because we > are born into a pre-existing (albeit fluid) culture. I am also inclined to > go along with Steven Mithen's contention (e.g. in 'The Singing > Neanderthals') that interactions and relations, first expressed through > movements and vocalisations, must have preceded any form of language. > > An image which I particularly like is of a mountain rising out of lush, > verdant valleys. Down in the valleys life is abundant, rich and complicated > but as one ascends the mountain the vegetation gives way to ice and snow. > The air becomes clear and cold and one can see for miles. Climbing is a > very direct form of abstraction, lifting oneself out of the muddle of > context to be able to see further and more clearly. But you can't live up > there for long. Very young children live in the foothills but they don't > have to find their own ways up to higher places because they are able to > see their parents and siblings making the ascent. > > For me it is a particular challenge to try to imagine what it is like to > be a two-year-old, not yet able to lift oneself out of one's immediate > context to think 'about' things but instead able to think in and with the > things and people and interactions that make up one's environment or > context. I would argue that it is easy to forget this 'withness thinking' > as John Shotter calls it, once thought is marshalled by more or less shared > concept systems. Even the most abstract of thinkers still have to come down > the mountain sometimes to engage with other people, to eat, wash and sleep > and these contexts of lived practice are also internalised, like the > opinions of our friends, and become part of our own relationships with our > contexts. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: 22 March 2016 00:27 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > Dear Colleagues. > > Mike: > > I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of foreground > and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the process of an event > becoming a semantic event. I was under the influence of the discussion of > fon/phonem and Rod's questions about which comes first. > > > > My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced it > pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there is no > name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue of sharing > is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not talking aloud, with > whom was I sharing an event being woven into a semantic event? The semantic > event happened, but the sharing? > > > > It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should find > its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. > > > > Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should occur > mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this list > represents, seems non-accidental. > > > > mike > > > > PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around three > uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of > origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about and > speak to David's characterization of my views. > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I understand > > it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in systems of > concepts > > and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant there > is > > no significant distinction between the attention and activity and the > > knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words allow > > multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can exist > outside > > any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but whether we > > think lived experience is reduced or elevated to shareable knowledge, > that > > knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality by > > 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends on every > > hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared branches with > private > > roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared directly, in > > shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' > ability > > to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It may be > > possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing into words > > (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or elevation) but > this > > translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > > > > I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, a > > generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, even if > it > > has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking about > > climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a flash of > > lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! > > > > It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a > > semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants > 'discover' > > that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated into > > 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the experience of > > 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I am still very > > uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can be thought of as > > semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a situation which has > been > > shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with anything > > as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of 'Ah, I know what > to > > expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of experience, > > elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. > > > > It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a chance > of > > sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with > these > > posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what > feels > > to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > > > Rod: > > > > I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a > > cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech community > > as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a > language) > > and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and > > the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be > > semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between > > context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski > > describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" > > in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about > > distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of > > situation. > > > > Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the > > relationship between context of culture and context of situation as being > > like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by two > > different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in > > timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena which > I > > will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena which > I > > will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a > > context of situation, we find things the other way around: the > > interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get > > foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and > therefore > > backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > > weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the > > extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is accidental > is > > the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the > > pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, > > incidental. > > > > Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I > > think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > > McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: taken > > too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason > > why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a > > SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather > > rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture > is > > ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even > > precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than the > > sum total of contexts of situations. > > > > But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do > > create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and > also > > Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we > > should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of > > instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > > > > So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a > text, > > so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the recording > > thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call discourse, but > > such is the conservatism of academics we tend to associate text with > > writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that were text, > > though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and they > > don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a > > setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through > > communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in > > the snow. > > > > And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of > > everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: > > it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that > > it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some > > cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally reducible > > to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or "activity", > > or "production". > > > > It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not > > activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not > production > > because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of > > commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's > > value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one > way > > the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of > culture > > is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume that > > since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which subtends > > them must be shared as well. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of > > > the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > > > > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in > > > the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It > > > is when people connect their interests in some way and share meanings > > > that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said > > > anything when you presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the > > > second presentation would be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, > > > this thing that we do' and this feeling of shared experience does seem > > > to play an important part in infants' assisted ability to weave > > > public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. > > > > > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of > > > culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and > > > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are > > > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns > > > and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in > > Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > > > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > > > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in > > > psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, > > > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > > > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys but > > > only if they have played with the toys together - watching the > > > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the > > > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, > > > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the infant's > > > knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other researchers or > > other toys). > > > > > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context > > > without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a > > > pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences > > > and guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded > > > by a cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the > > > concept systems which have evolved out of the patterns in people's > > > behaviour. What their caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped > > > both by what those caregivers have seen other people do and by a long > > > history of people hearing and reading about what other people do and > > > have done. I would like to be able to use context to refer to the > > > culturally patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice > > > particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have > > > understood correctly - and what are the chances?) to refer to a > > > personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the > > > way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into different > > > contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word > > > for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join > > > in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems > > > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new > > > role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong > at > > the core of the group. > > > > > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social > > > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > > > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument > > > that infant development has to be understood in terms of interwoven > > > processes of making sense and making relationships - drawing together > > > a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > Rod: > > > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > > > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We > > > ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean > > > speaking parent and one English speaking one): > > > > > > a) English: What's this? > > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next > > > three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. > > > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors > > > but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. > > > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > > > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the > > > problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > > > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > > > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time > > > I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could > > > see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child > > > was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of > > > "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And > > > after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the > > > large person making so much noise might be thinking something along > > those lines too. > > > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all > > > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, > > > the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it > > > seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the > > > material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for > > > semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of > > > "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act > > > of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and > > > it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example > > > I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for > > > the second. > > > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural > > > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline > > > of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a > > > context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the > > > end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a > > > context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language > > > system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP > > > and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the > > > Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > > > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > > > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start > > looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem > > > of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, > > > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. > > > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do > > > next?) > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context > > > > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying > > > > to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by > > > > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here > > > > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an > 'individual' > > > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts > > > > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > > > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a > > > > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise > > > > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in > > > > a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is > > > > rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) > > > > which refer to > > > experiences but 'from above' > > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > > > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this > > > > is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a > > > > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is > > > > not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I > > > > like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' > > > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather > than > > 'below' > > > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is > > > > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting > > > > with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to > > > > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that > > > > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a > > > > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived > > > > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > > > > philosophical > > > thought-play. > > > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch > > > > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects > > > > of > > > human life. > > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC > > > > has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, > > > > shared activity and the law of genetic development. > > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in > > > > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced > > > > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything > > > > I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood > > > > and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss > > > > the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, > > > > originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can > > > > index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only > > > > achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since > > > > the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of > > > > practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept > > > > can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > > assimilated. > > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you > > > > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different > > > > meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity > > > > involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same > > > > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." > > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to > > > > be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, > > > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they > > > > are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > > > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation > > > > by means of having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks > > > > > in each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the > > > > > infrequency of common citations). As described in our article, we > > > > > and several of our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and > > > > > have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with > > > Greenfield. > > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too > > > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > > > > > opposite > > > direction. > > > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems > > > > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts > > > > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the > > > > > symbol for change. > > > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in > > > > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to > > > > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form > > > > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and > > > neuro-psychology. > > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > > > > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the > > > > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and > > > > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community > > > > >> to cultural community psychology. > > > > >> > > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > > > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then > > > > >> found clear references to these influences, which even meant the > > > > >> delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the > > > > >> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the > > > > >> project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What > > > > >> were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be > > > > >> interested to know about them in part because, while the paper > > > > >> discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would > > > > >> like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other > > direction. > > > > >> > > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however > > > > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > > > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a > > > > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was > > > > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on > > > > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory > > > > >> (I just had a very brief first > > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > > > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > > > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to > > > > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta > > theory. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > > >> > > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > > >> > > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > > > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of > MCA. > > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw > > > > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before > > > > >> this part of the discussion could take place. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > > > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only > > > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, > > > > >> but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas > > > > >> in papers that sample our different interests. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it > > > > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > > > > >> enhancing communication. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> get your copy at > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > > > >> interested. > > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> mike > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> > > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > > > > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > > > Division 27) > > > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > > > 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]< > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > 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]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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. > > > > > > > -- > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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. > > -- 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 Mar 22 10:31:45 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:31:45 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: <56f16526.5a46620a.731ba.ffffac62@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <56f18185.65a3420a.2ed96.ffffde15@mx.google.com> Mike, I am questioning if there exists undifferentiated experience which becomes differentiated. The not formed becoming formed. Another way (approach) to this question is if consciousness (awareness) precedes self-consciousness. There may also be non-conscious phenomena? Now intentional can mean either consciousness in general or self-consciousness in particular. I was exploring your experience of the cloured flash AS a Surprise that was not an intentional act but I am suggesting this event occurring actually called you TO attention and by attending or focusing opening a space of intentionally acting. This is entering conscious experiencing but is not automatically self-conscious. What was surprising (and occurring on the periphery) was beyond intentional acts but then this phenomena became by this surprising event calling us to focus a call to intentionality where we are then selecting (differentiating). The relation of intentional/conscious phenomena becoming self-conscious phenomena which includes naming phenomena ( genetic epistemology as the pursuit of a genuine praxis oriented epistemic ad/venture is a particular kind of naming) but situated in a wider horizon where something surprising fractures auto-nomos (automatic habitual naming). This relation of surprise existing beyond the boundary of intentional acts can be understood as a calling us (to focus or attend). We can name this response of becoming conscious as intentional or we can limit intentional to the kinds of conscious awareness that becomes auto-nomos or naming phenomena. This is a judgement call and how we decide determines and commits us to a particular notion of what intentional means. This is an *existential* question.. By existential I mean an involved/engaged question, a question whose answer commits us to a particular way forward, and expresses uncertainty always open to surprise. Existence occurring at the base of the mountain of clarity, not a movement of ascent. The flashing colour as a surprise opens a moment within time and space calls us. The naming that seems simultaneous ( a bird) is conditioned by the setting or situation but the surprise as existential within being involved/engaged leads towards naming (often auto-nomos) but the naming is not the Surprise. The naming is becoming committed within an uncertain surprising occurence of flashing colour that is/was unexpected. The naming is text and that way is the way of value tout court. Larry -----Original Message----- From: "mike cole" Sent: ?2016-?03-?22 9:17 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? Hi Larry-- I could follow at least part of that. Sure is a multi-faceted discussion. I want to ask about your assertion below. However, this naming [an intentional act] was preceded by a *calling* to focus from the periphery and this calling to focus on phenomena which show up could be given multiple names depending on the particular culture of shared meanings. My question is about the term intention. I seem to recall David using the term "conscious" in a similar way. In what sense are you using the phrase, "intentional act?" Didn't feel like i was expecting the flash of orange/yellow light, I was looking at differences among finches. No awareness of search for a word. (Here Rod's important point that I come to the experience with a rich, inescapable, tangle of concepts/words may be so interiorized that it is barely accessible to conscious thought/manipulation. mike On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > Rod, > A very moving metaphor that carried me within lived experience AND concept > systems. This metaphor also allows me to approach you and our article for > discussion in a different *light*. [or should I say different *forms* of > light?] > > Mike [as] an accomplished traveller who with others [and among others] > participates in a culture of sharing concept systems and delights in > ascending mountains to attain the places of clarity and cool reason from > which to as/certain the valley below. > This place of *about* from which we may look *back* upon the verdant > multiformed valley below. > > I will add an image of the sign of Capricorn to your metaphor. Capricorn > is under [or with] the sign of the *fishgoat*. The fishgoat must FIRST > descend into the depths of existence before ascending to the spiritual > heights. > > I also will add a question on the shifting movement between [focus] and > [periphery]. > Learning may often be developing the ability to focus [pay attention, > concentrate, move between past, present future] but this may become so > dominant an approach to phenomena that we loose sight of life and vitality > moving within the periphery. Now this metaphor of focus/periphery boundary > marking may indicate that we in modernity have become pre/occupied with > focusing and there/fore perceiving the periphery has moved into the > background. > My question is if we can learn to develop the *art* of fluidly shifting > between focus and periphery. > Mike noticing the flash of colour illuminating the periphery and then Mike > becoming intentionally focused upon ?What is it? Is it a ???? > > Now in some cultures THIS flash of colour is an illumination OF my > ancestor, or an illumination of a divinity as what is ?calling? us to > attention but in Mike?s culture of shared meanings he names what is > calling him *an oriole*. > > Mike is travelling within and approaching this flash of colour AS > something and giving this something a name. However, this naming [an > intentional act] was preceded by a *calling* to focus from the periphery > and this calling to focus on phenomena which show up could be given > multiple names depending on the particular culture of shared meanings. > > What seems to me a key question is David?s question. Is this way of > travelling together *value tout court* or is travelling [this way] > primarily a *production with exchange value*? > > Cliff explores the development of *fields* as a *space* of shared > meanings. I am suggesting a metaphor of [house] as overlapping the metaphor > of [fields]. Fields trace a different path for travelling or approaching > phenomena. The arena or stage of genetic epistemology which may originate > with Kant and transcendental questions as ways to pro/ceed. [emphasis on > ?pro?] > This is a path through re/presentations that call us by giving names to > substances which then accompany as the substances that become already given > prior to undertaking our travelling together. We are now moving through > shared *fields*. [scientific disciplines] > > The question then becomes where should we build our dwelling homes? > Should humans live primarily upon the mountain peaks of *about* abstracted > high above the valleys [or depths] or should we primarily dwell within the > valleys and depths and on occasion ascend the mountain? > > Rod, your metaphor of ascent and descent *trails* or *traces* a wide arc > through history [both east and west]. The Tao as [the way]. In the West > *spirit* as ascent to the heights. > > Is this way of expressing [sense] and [meaning] *value* tout court moving > within phenomena? Is this way of moving or proceeding more about [calling] > than [naming]? Or [being - called]. In other words is calling [as itself] > *being* or the things themselves *doing* the calling and then we name > these things [as] something? > > Is Cliff?s article which is an exploration of living within *fields* more > generally a way of proceeding [as] a kind of living which occurs *within* > genetic epistemology [which we can trace back to Kant]. > Is this way [as a particular way of pro/ceding forward and not a general > way] which is expressing a *value* actually *a* particular *value*? [tout > court]. > > Is genetic epistemology as a form of existence at its foundational basis > actually meta/phorical? Something [as] something else? Transcendental > notions [including notions of intersubjectivity] as able to be traced back > to Kant as a philosophical practice. A particular path up the mountain but > not the mountain itself. > > Embracing genetic epistemology [as] a way to proceed [through naming > phenomena as a way of knowing] but not loosing sight that this way of > focusing through naming occurs by bringing the periphery that is calling us > [for example a flash of colour becoming ?an oriole?] into a particular > kind of focus. > Is it possible to relate to the periphery as a practice of > undifferentiated experience travelling with relating through focusing > [paying attention to differentiated phenomena]? > My bias is to suggest that human being/becoming is a form of travelling > together in close proximity to the Neanderthals singing the world [vocal > and motor gesture]. We have added complexity but where is the singing today? > Intersubjectivity as a phenomena of calling others [joint action, joint > attention] prior to being a naming phenomena. > Genetic epistemology as a way is already moving [and has moved] in the > direction of ascent to *about* and *abstraction* from which we can see with > clarity. However, as Rod says, iis it time to bring this way of travelling > back to earth to be grounded within the earth or watery depths. > > Not sure if this is too eccentric and idiosyncratic a reflection but is > how I was intersubjectively called to answer or address this community of > interpreters. > Larry > > > > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: Rod Parker-Rees > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:27 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > Mike, > > I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a > culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might > well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we can share an > experience with our friends without needing them to be there ('X and Y > would love this') - and of course social media allows us to share > experiences with remote friends, though I am not sure that the pleasure of > sharing is of quite the same order - maybe it is more so for digital > natives. > > My interest in 'which comes first' is really ontological - I would have to > argue that for any individual person context always comes first because we > are born into a pre-existing (albeit fluid) culture. I am also inclined to > go along with Steven Mithen's contention (e.g. in 'The Singing > Neanderthals') that interactions and relations, first expressed through > movements and vocalisations, must have preceded any form of language. > > An image which I particularly like is of a mountain rising out of lush, > verdant valleys. Down in the valleys life is abundant, rich and complicated > but as one ascends the mountain the vegetation gives way to ice and snow. > The air becomes clear and cold and one can see for miles. Climbing is a > very direct form of abstraction, lifting oneself out of the muddle of > context to be able to see further and more clearly. But you can't live up > there for long. Very young children live in the foothills but they don't > have to find their own ways up to higher places because they are able to > see their parents and siblings making the ascent. > > For me it is a particular challenge to try to imagine what it is like to > be a two-year-old, not yet able to lift oneself out of one's immediate > context to think 'about' things but instead able to think in and with the > things and people and interactions that make up one's environment or > context. I would argue that it is easy to forget this 'withness thinking' > as John Shotter calls it, once thought is marshalled by more or less shared > concept systems. Even the most abstract of thinkers still have to come down > the mountain sometimes to engage with other people, to eat, wash and sleep > and these contexts of lived practice are also internalised, like the > opinions of our friends, and become part of our own relationships with our > contexts. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: 22 March 2016 00:27 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > Dear Colleagues. > > Mike: > > I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of foreground > and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the process of an event > becoming a semantic event. I was under the influence of the discussion of > fon/phonem and Rod's questions about which comes first. > > > > My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced it > pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there is no > name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue of sharing > is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not talking aloud, with > whom was I sharing an event being woven into a semantic event? The semantic > event happened, but the sharing? > > > > It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should find > its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. > > > > Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should occur > mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this list > represents, seems non-accidental. > > > > mike > > > > PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around three > uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of > origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about and > speak to David's characterization of my views. > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I understand > > it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in systems of > concepts > > and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant there > is > > no significant distinction between the attention and activity and the > > knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words allow > > multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can exist > outside > > any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but whether we > > think lived experience is reduced or elevated to shareable knowledge, > that > > knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality by > > 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends on every > > hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared branches with > private > > roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared directly, in > > shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' > ability > > to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It may be > > possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing into words > > (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or elevation) but > this > > translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > > > > I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, a > > generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, even if > it > > has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking about > > climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a flash of > > lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! > > > > It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a > > semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants > 'discover' > > that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated into > > 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the experience of > > 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I am still very > > uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can be thought of as > > semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a situation which has > been > > shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with anything > > as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of 'Ah, I know what > to > > expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of experience, > > elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. > > > > It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a chance > of > > sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with > these > > posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what > feels > > to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > > > Rod: > > > > I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a > > cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech community > > as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a > language) > > and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and > > the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be > > semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between > > context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski > > describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" > > in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about > > distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of > > situation. > > > > Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the > > relationship between context of culture and context of situation as being > > like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by two > > different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in > > timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena which > I > > will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena which > I > > will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a > > context of situation, we find things the other way around: the > > interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get > > foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and > therefore > > backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > > weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the > > extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is accidental > is > > the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the > > pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, > > incidental. > > > > Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I > > think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > > McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: taken > > too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason > > why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a > > SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather > > rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture > is > > ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even > > precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than the > > sum total of contexts of situations. > > > > But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do > > create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and > also > > Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we > > should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of > > instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > > > > So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a > text, > > so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the recording > > thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call discourse, but > > such is the conservatism of academics we tend to associate text with > > writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that were text, > > though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and they > > don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a > > setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through > > communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in > > the snow. > > > > And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of > > everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: > > it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that > > it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some > > cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally reducible > > to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or "activity", > > or "production". > > > > It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not > > activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not > production > > because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of > > commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's > > value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one > way > > the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of > culture > > is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume that > > since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which subtends > > them must be shared as well. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of > > > the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > > > > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in > > > the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It > > > is when people connect [The entire original message is not included.] From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Tue Mar 22 11:31:09 2016 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:31:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes indeed but how much is the oneself that one shares with really one's 'own' self, and how much a composite, formed out of previous interactions with others? Surely this sort of internalised conversation is an example of Vygotsky's 'Higher Mental Functions' - taken in from experience in social interactions. I didn't know that birds like jam (as we call jelly over here!). So much to learn from xmca. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: 22 March 2016 16:29 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? This is very much along the lines of what I was thinking Rod: *I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we can share an experience with our friends without needing them to be there ('X and Y would love this').* Except, i started to think, I can also share with myself, mediated by that same system of concepts. I can stand there and, post facto, think, "Gee, its sure rare to see an oriole" and think about last time I saw one there, or remind myself to get some grape jelly to see if I can entice more to come visit. And I can sure think about telling my wife when I go back into the house and the pleasure she will get from knowing we had a distinguished visitor. The internal dialogue of consciousness available to an adult is sort of like sharing with oneself over time. Dialogic imagination? mike On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > Mike, > > I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a > culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience > might well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we > can share an experience with our friends without needing them to be > there ('X and Y would love this') - and of course social media allows > us to share experiences with remote friends, though I am not sure that > the pleasure of sharing is of quite the same order - maybe it is more > so for digital natives. > > My interest in 'which comes first' is really ontological - I would > have to argue that for any individual person context always comes > first because we are born into a pre-existing (albeit fluid) culture. > I am also inclined to go along with Steven Mithen's contention (e.g. > in 'The Singing > Neanderthals') that interactions and relations, first expressed > through movements and vocalisations, must have preceded any form of language. > > An image which I particularly like is of a mountain rising out of > lush, verdant valleys. Down in the valleys life is abundant, rich and > complicated but as one ascends the mountain the vegetation gives way to ice and snow. > The air becomes clear and cold and one can see for miles. Climbing is > a very direct form of abstraction, lifting oneself out of the muddle > of context to be able to see further and more clearly. But you can't > live up there for long. Very young children live in the foothills but > they don't have to find their own ways up to higher places because > they are able to see their parents and siblings making the ascent. > > For me it is a particular challenge to try to imagine what it is like > to be a two-year-old, not yet able to lift oneself out of one's > immediate context to think 'about' things but instead able to think in > and with the things and people and interactions that make up one's > environment or context. I would argue that it is easy to forget this 'withness thinking' > as John Shotter calls it, once thought is marshalled by more or less > shared concept systems. Even the most abstract of thinkers still have > to come down the mountain sometimes to engage with other people, to > eat, wash and sleep and these contexts of lived practice are also > internalised, like the opinions of our friends, and become part of our > own relationships with our contexts. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: 22 March 2016 00:27 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > Dear Colleagues. > > Mike: > > I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of > foreground and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the > process of an event becoming a semantic event. I was under the > influence of the discussion of fon/phonem and Rod's questions about which comes first. > > > > My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced > it pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there > is no name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue > of sharing is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not > talking aloud, with whom was I sharing an event being woven into a > semantic event? The semantic event happened, but the sharing? > > > > It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should > find its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. > > > > Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should > occur mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this > list represents, seems non-accidental. > > > > mike > > > > PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around > three uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of > origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about > and speak to David's characterization of my views. > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I > > understand it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in > > systems of > concepts > > and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant > > there > is > > no significant distinction between the attention and activity and > > the knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words > > allow multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can > > exist > outside > > any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but > > whether we think lived experience is reduced or elevated to > > shareable knowledge, > that > > knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality > > by 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends > > on every hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared > > branches with > private > > roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared > > directly, in shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' > ability > > to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It > > may be possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing > > into words (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or > > elevation) but > this > > translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > > > > I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, > > a generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, > > even if > it > > has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking > > about climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a > > flash of lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! > > > > It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a > > semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants > 'discover' > > that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated > > into 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the > > experience of 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I > > am still very uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can > > be thought of as semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a > > situation which has > been > > shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with > > anything as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of > > 'Ah, I know what > to > > expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of > > experience, elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. > > > > It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a > > chance > of > > sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with > these > > posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what > feels > > to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > > > Rod: > > > > I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see > > a cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech > > community as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who > > speak a > language) > > and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture > > and the elements of a material situational setting which are > > selected to be semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of > > instantiation between context of culture and context of situation is > > exactly what Malinowski describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" > > in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about > > distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context > > of situation. > > > > Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the > > relationship between context of culture and context of situation as > > being like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought > > about by two different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. > > The difference in timescale does mean that in a context of culture > > certain phenomena which > I > > will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena > > which > I > > will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in > > a context of situation, we find things the other way around: the > > interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to > > get foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and > therefore > > backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > > weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and > > the extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is > > accidental > is > > the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is > > the pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation > > is...well, incidental. > > > > Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" > > I think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > > McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: > > taken too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me > > the reason why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother > > tongue as a SECOND language is because in the long run climate > > determines weather rather than the other way around; in a language, > > the context of culture > is > > ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and > > even precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing > > more than the sum total of contexts of situations. > > > > But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really > > do create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine > > Nelson and > also > > Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then > > we should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the > > cline of instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > > > > So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a > text, > > so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the > > recording thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call > > discourse, but such is the conservatism of academics we tend to > > associate text with writing rather than with thinking and with > > speech. If that were text, though, infants would have to wait for > > half a decade for it, and they don't. Text is semantic; we have text > > wherever we have the analysis of a setting into a context and the > > sharing of that analysis through communication. Text is the beast > > itself and not simply its footprints in the snow. > > > > And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total > > of everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: > > it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was > > that it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and > > in some cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's > > literally reducible to a handful of written texts). It's not just > > "behaviour", or "activity", or "production". > > > > It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's > > not activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not > production > > because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production > > of commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. > > But it's value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in > > at least one > way > > the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of > culture > > is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume > > that since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge > > which subtends them must be shared as well. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the > > > discussion of the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > > > > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, > > > in the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between > > > people. It is when people connect their interests in some way and > > > share meanings that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if > > > you hadn't said anything when you presented the book to the 9 > > > month old baby, the second presentation would be recognised as a > > > social event - 'Oh yes, this thing that we do' and this feeling of > > > shared experience does seem to play an important part in infants' > > > assisted ability to weave public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. > > > > > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context > > > of culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and > > > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are > > > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving > > > patterns and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues > > > (discussed in > > Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > > > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > > > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new > > > developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social > > > neuroscience. Cambridge, > > > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > > > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys > > > but only if they have played with the toys together - watching the > > > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the > > > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, > > > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the > > > infant's knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other > > > researchers or > > other toys). > > > > > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no > > > context without specific, personally experienced and woven text? > > > Or is there a pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the > > > weaver, influences and guides the texts which come to be formed? > > > Infants are surrounded by a cultural context which is richly and > > > densely shaped by the concept systems which have evolved out of > > > the patterns in people's behaviour. What their caregivers do with, > > > to and around them is shaped both by what those caregivers have > > > seen other people do and by a long history of people hearing and > > > reading about what other people do and have done. I would like to > > > be able to use context to refer to the culturally patterned > > > environment in which infants are helped to notice particular kinds > > > of patterns but you want the word (if I have understood correctly > > > - and what are the chances?) to refer to a personal frame of > > > reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the way the 'same' > > > cultural environment can be woven into different contexts by > > > different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word for the > > > co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join in > > > before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems > > > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a > > > new role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they > > > belong > at > > the core of the group. > > > > > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in > > > Social > > > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > > > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan > > > argument that infant development has to be understood in terms of > > > interwoven processes of making sense and making relationships - > > > drawing together a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > Rod: > > > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > > > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. > > > We ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one > > > Korean speaking parent and one English speaking one): > > > > > > a) English: What's this? > > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the > > > next three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. > > > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just > > > colors but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. > > > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > > > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That > > > the problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > > > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > > > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND > > > time I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! > > > You could see that although the child had no idea what was being > > > said, the child was might just be starting to think some > > > proto-language equivalent of "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got > > > mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And after a minute or so, the child > > > looked up, as if to see whether the large person making so much > > > noise might be thinking something along > > those lines too. > > > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all > > > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just > > > perceptions, the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the > > > same. But it seems that there's only text when something has been > > > selected from the material setting by some human consciousness or > > > consciousnesses for semiotic transformation; there's only text > > > when there some kind of "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS > > > act of selection which transforms a material setting into a > > > context, and it's premature to speak of context before that > > > happens. So for example I wouldn't use the term context for the > > > first week of work, only for the second. > > > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and > > > "cultural context", because I believe that context, like text, > > > exists on a cline of instantiation. At one end, we have the > > > relationship between a context of situation (Malinowski) and a > > > text (Halliday). That's the end I'm at right now. At the other, we > > > have the relationship between a context of culture (again, > > > Malinowski) and...and a whole language system (again, Halliday). I > > > gather that's the end at which the KEEP and the Community > > > Development projects in Micronesia and the Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > > > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > > > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well > > > start > > looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole > > > problem of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how > > > exciting it is, and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. > > > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to > > > do > > > next?) > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about > > > > context since my own understanding of this term is in the > > > > context of trying to understand how preverbal children make > > > > sense (meanings framed by social and physical contexts more than > > > > by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to separate a text > > > > out of the context, an > 'individual' > > > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which > > > > concepts have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > > > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within > > > > a family is of a different order to that available between > > > > otherwise unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one > > > > is rooted in a history of shared experiences in common contexts > > > > the other is rooted in a history of more or less abstracted > > > > ideas (concepts) which refer to > > > experiences but 'from above' > > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is > > > > never completely achievable and I think the positive consequence > > > > of this is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a > > > > process, a conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with > > > > other people is not an achieved end but a means towards sharing > > > > understanding (I like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' > > > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' > > > > rather > than > > 'below' > > > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood > > > > is importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or > > > > meeting with them, can enrich our personal understanding by > > > > exposing us to different ways of thinking but I think we have to > > > > recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be > > > > understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest > > > > knowing of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal > > > > abstractions of philosophical > > > thought-play. > > > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little > > > > bunch of us has different concerns and shines light on different > > > > aspects of > > > human life. > > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that > > > > CC has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity > > > > setting, shared activity and the law of genetic development. > > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out > > > > that in the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was > > > > generally practiced as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison > > > > studies", but everything I read in your paper tends to suggest > > > > "culture" is still understood and used in just this sense. > > > > Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to > > > > "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a > > > > mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. > > > > Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of > > > > shared concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a > > > > concept is ultimately the larger system of practices to which it > > > > is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can only be > > > > shared when the broader context of its use is already > > assimilated. > > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that > > > > you were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a > > > > different meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. > > > > "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors feeling the same emotions > > > > and values in the same situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." > > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out > > > > to be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, > > > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think > > > > they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > > > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual > > > > appropriation by means of having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff > > > > O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I > > > > > thought that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, > > > > > most folks in each appeared to be unaware of the other > > > > > (judging by the infrequency of common citations). As described > > > > > in our article, we and several of our colleagues have been > > > > > influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work > > > > > with > > > Greenfield. > > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too > > > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > > > > > opposite > > > direction. > > > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial > > > > > systems with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory > > > > > boldly attempts to be a universal theory of how change occurs > > > > > using Delta as the symbol for change. > > > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive > > > > > science, psycho-neurology, and a potential center of > > > > > commonality in psychology of interest! That is the goal of the > > > > > article, i.e., to show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have > > > > > the potential to form that commonality with developmental, > > > > > educational, cognitive, and > > > neuro-psychology. > > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in > > > > > the process. > > > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I > > > > >> was not familiar to cultural community psychology and this > > > > >> and the other papers in the symposium do a great job > > > > >> introducing and concisely describing the field, and how it > > > > >> evolved from community to cultural community psychology. > > > > >> > > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community > > > > >> psychology itself from the start. As I progressed in my > > > > >> reading, I then found clear references to these influences, > > > > >> which even meant the delay of the publishing of Roland's > > > > >> work, I assume, due to the important input that Vygotsky's > > > > >> publications meant for the project. But then I wondered on > > > > >> what had been other sources. What were other foundational > > > > >> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them > > > > >> in part because, while the paper discusses many examples in > > > > >> which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about > > > > >> the (possible) inputs in the other > > direction. > > > > >> > > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, > > > > >> however brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > > > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as > > > > >> a move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this > > > > >> was pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline > > > > >> based on dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. > > > > >> Delta theory (I just had a very brief first > > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > > > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > > > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights > > > > >> to those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and > > > > >> Delta > > theory. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > > >> > > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > > >> > > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper > > > > >> by Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent > > > > >> issue of > MCA. > > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff > > > > >> saw as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed > > > > >> away before this part of the discussion could take place. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > > > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only > > > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity > > > > >> theory, but because we have a tradition of chatting here > > > > >> about the ideas in papers that sample our different interests. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. > > > > >> May it be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to > > > > >> promote growth enhancing communication. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> get your copy at > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > > > >> interested. > > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> mike > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> > > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science > > > > >> with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > > > Division 27) > > > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > > > 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]< > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > 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]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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. > > > > > > > -- > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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. > > -- 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 dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Mar 22 14:08:17 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:08:17 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps we need to start thinking of clines in general as DIS-continuous rather than as continuous. To return, once again, to the metaphor of climate and weather: the recent report by Hansen et al (Columbia) on the effect of Greenland and Antarctic ice melt on climate is, on the one hand, continuous--the greenhouse gases emissions are gradual, and the resultant warming is fairly linear, at least seen in large grain. But the effects are catastrophic: at a certain point the fresh water shuts down the water turnover that radiates heat into space, and that results in a vicious cycle, superstorms, and sea level rises of many meters within a century. As Hansen points out, this will eliminate almost all coastal cities and fundamentally change cultural history as we know it. Contexts are like this too. One obvious discontinuity is between the language system as a whole and all of its meaning potential and the functional register that we use for a particular purpose, e.g. the discontinuity between what the English language can do as a resource and the fairly narrow range of meanings that we use here in xmca discussions (we all have different ways of trying to stretch it: Mike's orioles, Larry's zodiac signs, and my snatches of opera, but we all return to a fairly narrow range in the end). Another is between functional registers and text types (e.g. the discontinuity between the sort of talk that we use here and the sort of papers that are publishable in MCA). These discontinuities are stretchable, but they are also snappable, and each discontinuity is marked by a tipping point of no return. Humans have always used the idea of "tipping points" to mediate their relationships with nature; since we are part of nature ourselves, it is hard to see how we could have turned the tables on nature and forced it to adapt to our needs in any other way. We use the hardness of one element to bring the toughness of another beneath the tipping point of our cutting power, and then we build artificial hedges that bring the inconveniences of hunting within the tipping point of human design and transform it into herding; we dig artificial rivers that redesign gathering as agriculture: all of these are "mediation", and all are nonlinear modifications. What nature is to the adult, culture is to the child. Since children are part of culture themselves, it is hard to see how they can force it to adapt to their needs without some kind of "tipping point" that allows them to turn the tables and acquire what they need from culture...by crying, for example, which brings food, warmth, and positioning within the tipping point of their feeble control, like a desert-dweller who must use a heavy counter-weight to bring a tone of well water within the feeble range of human muscle power. This too has to be a nonlinear modification. But then the child has to bring his or her own behaviour within the tipping point of an imaginary creature we have chosen to dignify with the shortest really independent word in our meaning potential, namely"I". What culture is to the child, the social "I" is to the psychological "I" that must inhabit it. My guess is that the word "self" will not do here, because it is too polyvalent: we need a "self" at the social personality end, which is highly sensitive to what others see and think ("X and Y would love this", "I would hate it if other people knew") and another self at the individual end, which is more attuned to private memories and expectations ("It sure is rare to see a male oriole", "I wish I hadn't done that"). And between them, of course, a highly discontinuous cline marked by long apparently empty spaces, but also by thick knots in the developmental grain, traces of shock waves, discontinuities that are only echoes of the developmental crises that brought the continuum into being. Not that different from Hansen et al on paleo-climatology. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > Yes indeed but how much is the oneself that one shares with really one's > 'own' self, and how much a composite, formed out of previous interactions > with others? > > Surely this sort of internalised conversation is an example of Vygotsky's > 'Higher Mental Functions' - taken in from experience in social interactions. > > I didn't know that birds like jam (as we call jelly over here!). > > So much to learn from xmca. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: 22 March 2016 16:29 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > This is very much along the lines of what I was thinking Rod: > > *I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a > culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might > well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we can share an > experience with our friends without needing them to be there ('X and Y > would love this').* > > Except, i started to think, I can also share with myself, mediated by that > same system of concepts. I can stand there and, post facto, think, "Gee, > its sure rare to see an oriole" and think about last time I saw one there, > or remind myself to get some grape jelly to see if I can entice more to > come visit. And I can sure think about telling my wife when I go back into > the house and the pleasure she will get from knowing we had a distinguished > visitor. > > The internal dialogue of consciousness available to an adult is sort of > like sharing with oneself over time. Dialogic imagination? > > mike > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Mike, > > > > I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a > > culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience > > might well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we > > can share an experience with our friends without needing them to be > > there ('X and Y would love this') - and of course social media allows > > us to share experiences with remote friends, though I am not sure that > > the pleasure of sharing is of quite the same order - maybe it is more > > so for digital natives. > > > > My interest in 'which comes first' is really ontological - I would > > have to argue that for any individual person context always comes > > first because we are born into a pre-existing (albeit fluid) culture. > > I am also inclined to go along with Steven Mithen's contention (e.g. > > in 'The Singing > > Neanderthals') that interactions and relations, first expressed > > through movements and vocalisations, must have preceded any form of > language. > > > > An image which I particularly like is of a mountain rising out of > > lush, verdant valleys. Down in the valleys life is abundant, rich and > > complicated but as one ascends the mountain the vegetation gives way to > ice and snow. > > The air becomes clear and cold and one can see for miles. Climbing is > > a very direct form of abstraction, lifting oneself out of the muddle > > of context to be able to see further and more clearly. But you can't > > live up there for long. Very young children live in the foothills but > > they don't have to find their own ways up to higher places because > > they are able to see their parents and siblings making the ascent. > > > > For me it is a particular challenge to try to imagine what it is like > > to be a two-year-old, not yet able to lift oneself out of one's > > immediate context to think 'about' things but instead able to think in > > and with the things and people and interactions that make up one's > > environment or context. I would argue that it is easy to forget this > 'withness thinking' > > as John Shotter calls it, once thought is marshalled by more or less > > shared concept systems. Even the most abstract of thinkers still have > > to come down the mountain sometimes to engage with other people, to > > eat, wash and sleep and these contexts of lived practice are also > > internalised, like the opinions of our friends, and become part of our > > own relationships with our contexts. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > > Sent: 22 March 2016 00:27 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > > > Dear Colleagues. > > > > Mike: > > > > I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of > > foreground and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the > > process of an event becoming a semantic event. I was under the > > influence of the discussion of fon/phonem and Rod's questions about > which comes first. > > > > > > > > My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced > > it pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there > > is no name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue > > of sharing is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not > > talking aloud, with whom was I sharing an event being woven into a > > semantic event? The semantic event happened, but the sharing? > > > > > > > > It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should > > find its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. > > > > > > > > Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should > > occur mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this > > list represents, seems non-accidental. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around > > three uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of > > origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about > > and speak to David's characterization of my views. > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I > > > understand it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in > > > systems of > > concepts > > > and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant > > > there > > is > > > no significant distinction between the attention and activity and > > > the knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words > > > allow multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can > > > exist > > outside > > > any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but > > > whether we think lived experience is reduced or elevated to > > > shareable knowledge, > > that > > > knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality > > > by 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends > > > on every hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared > > > branches with > > private > > > roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared > > > directly, in shared attention, for example, it does not depend on > participants' > > ability > > > to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It > > > may be possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing > > > into words (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or > > > elevation) but > > this > > > translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > > > > > > I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, > > > a generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, > > > even if > > it > > > has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking > > > about climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a > > > flash of lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of > that beast! > > > > > > It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a > > > semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants > > 'discover' > > > that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated > > > into 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the > > > experience of 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I > > > am still very uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can > > > be thought of as semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a > > > situation which has > > been > > > shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with > > > anything as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of > > > 'Ah, I know what > > to > > > expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of > > > experience, elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of > context. > > > > > > It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a > > > chance > > of > > > sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with > > these > > > posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what > > feels > > > to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > > Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > > > > > Rod: > > > > > > I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see > > > a cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech > > > community as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who > > > speak a > > language) > > > and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture > > > and the elements of a material situational setting which are > > > selected to be semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of > > > instantiation between context of culture and context of situation is > > > exactly what Malinowski describes in the long addendum he appended to > "The Meaning of Meaning" > > > in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about > > > distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context > > > of situation. > > > > > > Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the > > > relationship between context of culture and context of situation as > > > being like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought > > > about by two different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. > > > The difference in timescale does mean that in a context of culture > > > certain phenomena which > > I > > > will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena > > > which > > I > > > will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in > > > a context of situation, we find things the other way around: the > > > interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to > > > get foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and > > therefore > > > backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > > > weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and > > > the extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is > > > accidental > > is > > > the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is > > > the pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation > > > is...well, incidental. > > > > > > Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" > > > I think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > > > McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: > > > taken too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me > > > the reason why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother > > > tongue as a SECOND language is because in the long run climate > > > determines weather rather than the other way around; in a language, > > > the context of culture > > is > > > ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and > > > even precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing > > > more than the sum total of contexts of situations. > > > > > > But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really > > > do create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine > > > Nelson and > > also > > > Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then > > > we should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the > > > cline of instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > > > > > > So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a > > text, > > > so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the > > > recording thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call > > > discourse, but such is the conservatism of academics we tend to > > > associate text with writing rather than with thinking and with > > > speech. If that were text, though, infants would have to wait for > > > half a decade for it, and they don't. Text is semantic; we have text > > > wherever we have the analysis of a setting into a context and the > > > sharing of that analysis through communication. Text is the beast > > > itself and not simply its footprints in the snow. > > > > > > And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total > > > of everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and > understands: > > > it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was > > > that it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and > > > in some cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's > > > literally reducible to a handful of written texts). It's not just > > > "behaviour", or "activity", or "production". > > > > > > It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's > > > not activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not > > production > > > because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production > > > of commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. > > > But it's value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in > > > at least one > > way > > > the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of > > culture > > > is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume > > > that since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge > > > which subtends them must be shared as well. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > David, > > > > > > > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the > > > > discussion of the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > > > > > > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, > > > > in the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between > > > > people. It is when people connect their interests in some way and > > > > share meanings that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if > > > > you hadn't said anything when you presented the book to the 9 > > > > month old baby, the second presentation would be recognised as a > > > > social event - 'Oh yes, this thing that we do' and this feeling of > > > > shared experience does seem to play an important part in infants' > > > > assisted ability to weave public, cultural meanings into their > private, personal experiences. > > > > > > > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context > > > > of culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and > > > > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are > > > > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving > > > > patterns and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues > > > > (discussed in > > > Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > > > > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > > > > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new > > > > developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social > > > > neuroscience. Cambridge, > > > > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > > > > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys > > > > but only if they have played with the toys together - watching the > > > > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the > > > > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, > > > > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the > > > > infant's knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other > > > > researchers or > > > other toys). > > > > > > > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no > > > > context without specific, personally experienced and woven text? > > > > Or is there a pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the > > > > weaver, influences and guides the texts which come to be formed? > > > > Infants are surrounded by a cultural context which is richly and > > > > densely shaped by the concept systems which have evolved out of > > > > the patterns in people's behaviour. What their caregivers do with, > > > > to and around them is shaped both by what those caregivers have > > > > seen other people do and by a long history of people hearing and > > > > reading about what other people do and have done. I would like to > > > > be able to use context to refer to the culturally patterned > > > > environment in which infants are helped to notice particular kinds > > > > of patterns but you want the word (if I have understood correctly > > > > - and what are the chances?) to refer to a personal frame of > > > > reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the way the 'same' > > > > cultural environment can be woven into different contexts by > > > > different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word for the > > > > co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join in > > > > before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems > > > > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a > > > > new role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they > > > > belong > > at > > > the core of the group. > > > > > > > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in > > > > Social > > > > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > > > > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan > > > > argument that infant development has to be understood in terms of > > > > interwoven processes of making sense and making relationships - > > > > drawing together a huge amount of research on early communication > and meaning sharing. > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > Rod: > > > > > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > > > > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. > > > > We ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one > > > > Korean speaking parent and one English speaking one): > > > > > > > > a) English: What's this? > > > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the > > > > next three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not > edible. > > > > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just > > > > colors but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are > letters. > > > > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > > > > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That > > > > the problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > > > > > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > > > > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND > > > > time I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! > > > > You could see that although the child had no idea what was being > > > > said, the child was might just be starting to think some > > > > proto-language equivalent of "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got > > > > mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And after a minute or so, the child > > > > looked up, as if to see whether the large person making so much > > > > noise might be thinking something along > > > those lines too. > > > > > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all > > > > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just > > > > perceptions, the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the > > > > same. But it seems that there's only text when something has been > > > > selected from the material setting by some human consciousness or > > > > consciousnesses for semiotic transformation; there's only text > > > > when there some kind of "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > > > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS > > > > act of selection which transforms a material setting into a > > > > context, and it's premature to speak of context before that > > > > happens. So for example I wouldn't use the term context for the > > > > first week of work, only for the second. > > > > > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and > > > > "cultural context", because I believe that context, like text, > > > > exists on a cline of instantiation. At one end, we have the > > > > relationship between a context of situation (Malinowski) and a > > > > text (Halliday). That's the end I'm at right now. At the other, we > > > > have the relationship between a context of culture (again, > > > > Malinowski) and...and a whole language system (again, Halliday). I > > > > gather that's the end at which the KEEP and the Community > > > > Development projects in Micronesia and the Delinquency Research > plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > > > > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > > > > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well > > > > start > > > looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > > > > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole > > > > problem of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how > > > > exciting it is, and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you > are an old hand. > > > > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to > > > > do > > > > next?) > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about > > > > > context since my own understanding of this term is in the > > > > > context of trying to understand how preverbal children make > > > > > sense (meanings framed by social and physical contexts more than > > > > > by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to separate a text > > > > > out of the context, an > > 'individual' > > > > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which > > > > > concepts have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > > > > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within > > > > > a family is of a different order to that available between > > > > > otherwise unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one > > > > > is rooted in a history of shared experiences in common contexts > > > > > the other is rooted in a history of more or less abstracted > > > > > ideas (concepts) which refer to > > > > experiences but 'from above' > > > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is > > > > > never completely achievable and I think the positive consequence > > > > > of this is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a > > > > > process, a conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with > > > > > other people is not an achieved end but a means towards sharing > > > > > understanding (I like the idea that the word understanding is > misunderstood - 'under' > > > > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' > > > > > rather > > than > > > 'below' > > > > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > > > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood > > > > > is importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or > > > > > meeting with them, can enrich our personal understanding by > > > > > exposing us to different ways of thinking but I think we have to > > > > > recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be > > > > > understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest > > > > > knowing of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal > > > > > abstractions of philosophical > > > > thought-play. > > > > > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little > > > > > bunch of us has different concerns and shines light on different > > > > > aspects of > > > > human life. > > > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > > > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that > > > > > CC has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity > > > > > setting, shared activity and the law of genetic development. > > > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > > > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out > > > > > that in the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was > > > > > generally practiced as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison > > > > > studies", but everything I read in your paper tends to suggest > > > > > "culture" is still understood and used in just this sense. > > > > > Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to > > > > > "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a > > > > > mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. > > > > > Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of > > > > > shared concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a > > > > > concept is ultimately the larger system of practices to which it > > > > > is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can only be > > > > > shared when the broader context of its use is already > > > assimilated. > > > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that > > > > > you were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a > > > > > different meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. > > > > > "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors feeling the same emotions > > > > > and values in the same situations," and I don't even know it means > to "feel values." > > > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out > > > > > to be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, > > > > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > > > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think > > > > > they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in > step. > > > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > > > > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual > > > > > appropriation by means of having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff > > > > > O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I > > > > > > thought that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, > > > > > > most folks in each appeared to be unaware of the other > > > > > > (judging by the infrequency of common citations). As described > > > > > > in our article, we and several of our colleagues have been > > > > > > influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT concepts in our research > and intervention programs. > > > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work > > > > > > with > > > > Greenfield. > > > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too > > > > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > > > > > > opposite > > > > direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial > > > > > > systems with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory > > > > > > boldly attempts to be a universal theory of how change occurs > > > > > > using Delta as the symbol for change. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive > > > > > > science, psycho-neurology, and a potential center of > > > > > > commonality in psychology of interest! That is the goal of the > > > > > > article, i.e., to show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have > > > > > > the potential to form that commonality with developmental, > > > > > > educational, cognitive, and > > > > neuro-psychology. > > > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in > > > > > > the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I > > > > > >> was not familiar to cultural community psychology and this > > > > > >> and the other papers in the symposium do a great job > > > > > >> introducing and concisely describing the field, and how it > > > > > >> evolved from community to cultural community psychology. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community > > > > > >> psychology itself from the start. As I progressed in my > > > > > >> reading, I then found clear references to these influences, > > > > > >> which even meant the delay of the publishing of Roland's > > > > > >> work, I assume, due to the important input that Vygotsky's > > > > > >> publications meant for the project. But then I wondered on > > > > > >> what had been other sources. What were other foundational > > > > > >> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them > > > > > >> in part because, while the paper discusses many examples in > > > > > >> which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about > > > > > >> the (possible) inputs in the other > > > direction. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > > > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, > > > > > >> however brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > > > > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as > > > > > >> a move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this > > > > > >> was pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline > > > > > >> based on dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. > > > > > >> Delta theory (I just had a very brief first > > > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > > > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > > > > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > > > > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights > > > > > >> to those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and > > > > > >> Delta > > > theory. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper > > > > > >> by Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent > > > > > >> issue of > > MCA. > > > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff > > > > > >> saw as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed > > > > > >> away before this part of the discussion could take place. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > > > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > > > > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only > > > > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity > > > > > >> theory, but because we have a tradition of chatting here > > > > > >> about the ideas in papers that sample our different interests. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > > > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. > > > > > >> May it be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to > > > > > >> promote growth enhancing communication. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> get your copy at > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > > > > >> interested. > > > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mike > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science > > > > > >> with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > > > > Division 27) > > > > > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > > > > > 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]< > > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > > > 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]< > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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. > > > > > > > -- > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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 a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Mar 22 16:14:12 2016 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:14:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1458688452161.6789@iped.uio.no> Mike, thanks a lot for this collection of quotations on context as rope. Did you collect them for some purpose before, or just came up with the connections for the occasion? Either way, in addition to thanks, wanted to point out yet another more recent appropriation of the same metaphor in Ingold (2015), who is becoming increasingly cited in MCA and neighboring fields. I have added on paragraph to the document you have put together, which I attach here. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 22 March 2016 01:32 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? Metaphors of context as a rope, regarding the discussion on con-text, fon/phoneme, climate/weather or not mike On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:27 PM, mike cole wrote: > Dear Colleagues. > > Mike: > > I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of foreground > and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the process of an event > becoming a semantic event. I was under the influence of the discussion of > fon/phonem and Rod's questions about which comes first. > > > > My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced it > pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there is no > name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue of sharing > is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not talking aloud, with > whom was I sharing an event being woven into a semantic event? The semantic > event happened, but the sharing? > > > > It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should find > its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. > > > > Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should occur > mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this list > represents, seems non-accidental. > > > > mike > > > > PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around three > uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of > origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about and > speak to David's characterization of my views. > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > >> This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I understand >> it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in systems of concepts >> and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant there is >> no significant distinction between the attention and activity and the >> knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words allow >> multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can exist outside >> any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but whether we >> think lived experience is reduced or elevated to shareable knowledge, that >> knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality by >> 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends on every >> hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared branches with private >> roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared directly, in >> shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' ability >> to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It may be >> possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing into words >> (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or elevation) but this >> translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. >> >> I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, a >> generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, even if it >> has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking about >> climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a flash of >> lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! >> >> It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a >> semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants 'discover' >> that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated into >> 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the experience of >> 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I am still very >> uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can be thought of as >> semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a situation which has been >> shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with anything >> as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of 'Ah, I know what to >> expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of experience, >> elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. >> >> It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a chance >> of sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with >> these posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what >> feels to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. >> >> All the best, >> >> Rod >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >> Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? >> >> Rod: >> >> I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a >> cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech community >> as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a language) >> and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and >> the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be >> semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between >> context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski >> describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" >> in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about >> distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of >> situation. >> >> Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the >> relationship between context of culture and context of situation as being >> like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by two >> different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in >> timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena which I >> will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena which I >> will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a >> context of situation, we find things the other way around: the >> interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get >> foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and therefore >> backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and >> weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the >> extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is accidental is >> the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the >> pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, >> incidental. >> >> Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I >> think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with >> McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: taken >> too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason >> why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a >> SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather >> rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture is >> ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even >> precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than the >> sum total of contexts of situations. >> >> But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do >> create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and also >> Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we >> should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of >> instantiation as easily as we do at the other. >> >> So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a >> text, so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the >> recording thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call >> discourse, but such is the conservatism of academics we tend to associate >> text with writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that were >> text, though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and they >> don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a >> setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through >> communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in >> the snow. >> >> And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of >> everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: >> it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that >> it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some >> cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally reducible >> to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or "activity", >> or "production". >> >> It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not >> activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not production >> because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of >> commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's >> value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one way >> the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of culture >> is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume that >> since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which subtends >> them must be shared as well. >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < >> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> > David, >> > >> > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of >> > the Tharp and O'Donnell article. >> > >> > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in >> > the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It >> > is when people connect their interests in some way and share meanings >> > that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said >> > anything when you presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the >> > second presentation would be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, >> > this thing that we do' and this feeling of shared experience does seem >> > to play an important part in infants' assisted ability to weave >> > public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. >> > >> > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of >> > culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and >> > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are >> > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns >> > and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in >> Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. >> > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding >> > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in >> > psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, >> > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to >> > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys but >> > only if they have played with the toys together - watching the >> > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the >> > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, >> > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the infant's >> > knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other researchers or >> other toys). >> > >> > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context >> > without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a >> > pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences >> > and guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded >> > by a cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the >> > concept systems which have evolved out of the patterns in people's >> > behaviour. What their caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped >> > both by what those caregivers have seen other people do and by a long >> > history of people hearing and reading about what other people do and >> > have done. I would like to be able to use context to refer to the >> > culturally patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice >> > particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have >> > understood correctly - and what are the chances?) to refer to a >> > personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the >> > way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into different >> > contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word >> > for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join >> > in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems >> > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new >> > role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong >> at the core of the group. >> > >> > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social >> > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would >> > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument >> > that infant development has to be understood in terms of interwoven >> > processes of making sense and making relationships - drawing together >> > a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. >> > >> > All the best, >> > >> > Rod >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >> > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion >> > >> > Rod: >> > >> > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. >> > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We >> > ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean >> > speaking parent and one English speaking one): >> > >> > a) English: What's this? >> > b) English: Is it a ...? >> > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) >> > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) >> > >> > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next >> > three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. >> > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors >> > but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. >> > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. >> > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the >> > problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. >> > >> > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not >> > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time >> > I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could >> > see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child >> > was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of >> > "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And >> > after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the >> > large person making so much noise might be thinking something along >> those lines too. >> > >> > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all >> > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, >> > the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it >> > seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the >> > material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for >> > semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of >> > "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, >> > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act >> > of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and >> > it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example >> > I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for >> > the second. >> > >> > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural >> > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline >> > of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a >> > context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the >> > end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a >> > context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language >> > system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP >> > and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the >> > Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" >> > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic >> > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start >> looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. >> > >> > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem >> > of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, >> > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. >> > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do >> > next?) >> > >> > David Kellogg >> > Macquarie University >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < >> > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: >> > >> > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context >> > > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying >> > > to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by >> > > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here >> > > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' >> > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. >> > > >> > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts >> > > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The >> > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a >> > > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise >> > > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in >> > > a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is >> > > rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) >> > > which refer to >> > experiences but 'from above' >> > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never >> > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this >> > > is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a >> > > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is >> > > not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I >> > > like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' >> > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather >> than 'below' >> > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). >> > > >> > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or >> > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is >> > > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting >> > > with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to >> > > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that >> > > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a >> > > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived >> > > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of >> > > philosophical >> > thought-play. >> > > >> > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. >> > > >> > > All the best, >> > > >> > > Rod >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 >> > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion >> > > >> > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. >> > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch >> > > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects >> > > of >> > human life. >> > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can >> > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC >> > > has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, >> > > shared activity and the law of genetic development. >> > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in >> > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in >> > > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced >> > > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything >> > > I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood >> > > and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss >> > > the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, >> > > originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can >> > > index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only >> > > achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since >> > > the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of >> > > practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept >> > > can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already >> assimilated. >> > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you >> > > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different >> > > meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity >> > > involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same >> > > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." >> > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to >> > > be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, >> > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint >> > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as >> > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they >> > > are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. >> > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating >> > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation >> > > by means of having a "center of commonality." >> > > >> > > Andy >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > *Andy Blunden* >> > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: >> > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought >> > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks >> > > > in each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the >> > > > infrequency of common citations). As described in our article, we >> > > > and several of our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and >> > > > have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. >> > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP >> > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with >> > Greenfield. >> > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too >> > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the >> > > > opposite >> > direction. >> > > > >> > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems >> > > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts >> > > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the >> > > > symbol for change. >> > > > >> > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, >> > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in >> > > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to >> > > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form >> > > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and >> > neuro-psychology. >> > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the >> > > > process. >> > > > >> > > > Cliff >> > > > >> > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was >> > > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the >> > > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and >> > > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community >> > > >> to cultural community psychology. >> > > >> >> > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT >> > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology >> > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then >> > > >> found clear references to these influences, which even meant the >> > > >> delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the >> > > >> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the >> > > >> project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What >> > > >> were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be >> > > >> interested to know about them in part because, while the paper >> > > >> discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would >> > > >> like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other >> direction. >> > > >> >> > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of >> > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however >> > > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and >> > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a >> > > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was >> > > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on >> > > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory >> > > >> (I just had a very brief first >> > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. >> > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a >> > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other >> > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to >> > > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta >> theory. >> > > >> >> > > >> Thanks, >> > > >> Alfredo >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> ________________________________________ >> > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> > > >> on behalf of mike cole >> > > >> >> > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 >> > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion >> > > >> >> > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by >> > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of >> MCA. >> > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw >> > > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before >> > > >> this part of the discussion could take place. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural >> > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the >> > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only >> > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, >> > > >> but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas >> > > >> in papers that sample our different interests. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an >> > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it >> > > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth >> > > >> enhancing communication. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> get your copy at >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be >> > > >> interested. >> > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> mike >> > > >> >> > > >> -- >> > > >> >> > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with >> > > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> > > > >> > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. >> > > > Professor Emeritus >> > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA >> > > > Division 27) >> > > > >> > > > University of Hawai'i >> > > > Department of Psychology >> > > > 2530 Dole Street >> > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > ________________________________ >> > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< >> > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >> > > >> > > 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]< >> > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >> > >> > 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]< >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >> >> 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. >> >> > > > -- > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ropes.doc Type: application/msword Size: 27136 bytes Desc: ropes.doc Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160322/1309d4f3/attachment.doc From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Mar 22 21:08:26 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:08:26 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56f216b1.090d620a.79be6.2935@mx.google.com> Mike, carrying on with the metaphor that your thinking was very much along the lines of what Rod was thinking. This notion of ?line? as Ingold?s focus in the metaphor of ropes entwining. However, I want to also draw out that in Ingold?s metaphor of rope was also another key metaphor that may be overlooked when focusing on images of ropes. This other metaphor is the notion of life as *carrying on* which is italicized in the fragment shared in exploring ropes and lines. Now this metaphor includes pilgrimage and travelling together and tracing, and tracking, and paths, and roads, as metaphors of *the way* forward. When entering the image of the rope we are travelling together. Is this metaphorical movement that carries us naming or is it calling? Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mike cole Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 9:32 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? This is very much along the lines of what I was thinking Rod: h *I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we can share an experience with our friends without needing them to be there ('X and Y would love this').* Except, i started to think, I can also share with myself, mediated by that same system of concepts. I can stand there and, post facto, think, "Gee,ked. its sure rare to see an oriole" and think about last time I saw one there, or remind myself to get some grape jelly to see if I can entice more to come visit. And I can sure think about telling my wife when I go back into the house and the pleasure she will get from knowing we had a distinguished visitor. The internal dialogue of consciousness available to an adult is sort of like sharing with oneself over time. Dialogic imagination? mike On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Rod Parker-Rees < R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > Mike, > > I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a > culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might > well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we can share an > experience with our friends without needing them to be there ('X and Y > would love this') - and of course social media allows us to share > experiences with remote friends, though I am not sure that the pleasure of > sharing is of quite the same order - maybe it is more so for digital > natives. > > My interest in 'which comes first' is really ontological - I would have to > argue that for any individual person context always comes first because we > are born into a pre-existing (albeit fluid) culture. I am also inclined to > go along with Steven Mithen's contention (e.g. in 'The Singing > Neanderthals') that interactions and relations, first expressed through > movements and vocalisations, must have preceded any form of language. > > An image which I particularly like is of a mountain rising out of lush, > verdant valleys. Down in the valleys life is abundant, rich and complicated > but as one ascends the mountain the vegetation gives way to ice and snow. > The air becomes clear and cold and one can see for miles. Climbing is a > very direct form of abstraction, lifting oneself out of the muddle of > context to be able to see further and more clearly. But you can't live up > there for long. Very young children live in the foothills but they don't > have to find their own ways up to higher places because they are able to > see their parents and siblings making the ascent. > > For me it is a particular challenge to try to imagine what it is like to > be a two-year-old, not yet able to lift oneself out of one's immediate > context to think 'about' things but instead able to think in and with the > things and people and interactions that make up one's environment or > context. I would argue that it is easy to forget this 'withness thinking' > as John Shotter calls it, once thought is marshalled by more or less shared > concept systems. Even the most abstract of thinkers still have to come down > the mountain sometimes to engage with other people, to eat, wash and sleep > and these contexts of lived practice are also internalised, like the > opinions of our friends, and become part of our own relationships with our > contexts. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: 22 March 2016 00:27 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > Dear Colleagues. > > Mike: > > I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of foreground > and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the process of an event > becoming a semantic event. I was under the influence of the discussion of > fon/phonem and Rod's questions about which comes first. > > > > My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced it > pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there is no > name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue of sharing > is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not talking aloud, with > whom was I sharing an event being woven into a semantic event? The semantic > event happened, but the sharing? > > > > It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should find > its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. > > > > Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should occur > mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this list > represents, seems non-accidental. > > > > mike > > > > PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around three > uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of > origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about and > speak to David's characterization of my views. > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I understand > > it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in systems of > concepts > > and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant there > is > > no significant distinction between the attention and activity and the > > knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words allow > > multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can exist > outside > > any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but whether we > > think lived experience is reduced or elevated to shareable knowledge, > that > > knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality by > > 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends on every > > hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared branches with > private > > roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared directly, in > > shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' > ability > > to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It may be > > possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing into words > > (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or elevation) but > this > > translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > > > > I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, a > > generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, even if > it > > has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking about > > climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a flash of > > lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! > > > > It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a > > semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants > 'discover' > > that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated into > > 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the experience of > > 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I am still very > > uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can be thought of as > > semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a situation which has > been > > shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with anything > > as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of 'Ah, I know what > to > > expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of experience, > > elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. > > > > It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a chance > of > > sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with > these > > posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what > feels > > to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > > > Rod: > > > > I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a > > cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech community > > as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a > language) > > and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and > > the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be > > semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between > > context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski > > describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" > > in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about > > distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of > > situation. > > > > Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the > > relationship between context of culture and context of situation as being > > like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by two > > different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in > > timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena which > I > > will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena which > I > > will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a > > context of situation, we find things the other way around: the > > interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get > > foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and > therefore > > backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > > weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the > > extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is accidental > is > > the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the > > pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, > > incidental. > > > > Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I > > think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > > McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: taken > > too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason > > why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a > > SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather > > rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture > is > > ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even > > precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than the > > sum total of contexts of situations. > > > > But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do > > create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and > also > > Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we > > should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of > > instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > > > > So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a > text, > > so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the recording > > thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call discourse, but > > such is the conservatism of academics we tend to associate text with > > writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that were text, > > though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and they > > don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a > > setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through > > communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in > > the snow. > > > > And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of > > everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and understands: > > it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that > > it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some > > cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally reducible > > to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or "activity", > > or "production". > > > > It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not > > activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not > production > > because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of > > commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's > > value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one > way > > the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of > culture > > is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume that > > since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which subtends > > them must be shared as well. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of > > > the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > > > > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in > > > the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It > > > is when people connect their interests in some way and share meanings > > > that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said > > > anything when you presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the > > > second presentation would be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, > > > this thing that we do' and this feeling of shared experience does seem > > > to play an important part in infants' assisted ability to weave > > > public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. > > > > > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of > > > culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and > > > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are > > > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns > > > and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in > > Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > > > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > > > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in > > > psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, > > > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > > > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys but > > > only if they have played with the toys together - watching the > > > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the > > > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, > > > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the infant's > > > knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other researchers or > > other toys). > > > > > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context > > > without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a > > > pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences > > > and guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded > > > by a cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the > > > concept systems which have evolved out of the patterns in people's > > > behaviour. What their caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped > > > both by what those caregivers have seen other people do and by a long > > > history of people hearing and reading about what other people do and > > > have done. I would like to be able to use context to refer to the > > > culturally patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice > > > particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have > > > understood correctly - and what are the chances?) to refer to a > > > personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the > > > way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into different > > > contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word > > > for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join > > > in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems > > > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new > > > role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong > at > > the core of the group. > > > > > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social > > > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > > > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument > > > that infant development has to be understood in terms of interwoven > > > processes of making sense and making relationships - drawing together > > > a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > Rod: > > > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > > > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We > > > ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean > > > speaking parent and one English speaking one): > > > > > > a) English: What's this? > > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next > > > three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. > > > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors > > > but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. > > > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > > > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the > > > problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > > > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > > > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time > > > I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could > > > see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child > > > was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of > > > "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And > > > after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the > > > large person making so much noise might be thinking something along > > those lines too. > > > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all > > > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, > > > the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it > > > seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the > > > material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for > > > semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of > > > "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act > > > of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and > > > it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example > > > I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for > > > the second. > > > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural > > > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline > > > of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a > > > context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the > > > end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a > > > context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language > > > system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP > > > and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the > > > Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > > > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > > > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start > > looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem > > > of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, > > > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. > > > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do > > > next?) > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context > > > > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying > > > > to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by > > > > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here > > > > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an > 'individual' > > > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts > > > > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > > > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a > > > > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise > > > > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in > > > > a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is > > > > rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) > > > > which refer to > > > experiences but 'from above' > > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > > > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this > > > > is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a > > > > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is > > > > not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I > > > > like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' > > > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather > than > > 'below' > > > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is > > > > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting > > > > with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to > > > > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that > > > > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a > > > > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived > > > > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > > > > philosophical > > > thought-play. > > > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch > > > > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects > > > > of > > > human life. > > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC > > > > has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, > > > > shared activity and the law of genetic development. > > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in > > > > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced > > > > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything > > > > I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood > > > > and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss > > > > the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, > > > > originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can > > > > index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only > > > > achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since > > > > the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of > > > > practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept > > > > can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > > assimilated. > > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you > > > > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different > > > > meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity > > > > involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same > > > > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." > > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to > > > > be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, > > > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they > > > > are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > > > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation > > > > by means of having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > > > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks > > > > > in each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the > > > > > infrequency of common citations). As described in our article, we > > > > > and several of our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and > > > > > have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. > > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with > > > Greenfield. > > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too > > > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > > > > > opposite > > > direction. > > > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems > > > > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts > > > > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the > > > > > symbol for change. > > > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > > > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in > > > > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to > > > > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form > > > > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and > > > neuro-psychology. > > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > > > > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the > > > > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and > > > > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community > > > > >> to cultural community psychology. > > > > >> > > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > > > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then > > > > >> found clear references to these influences, which even meant the > > > > >> delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the > > > > >> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the > > > > >> project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What > > > > >> were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be > > > > >> interested to know about them in part because, while the paper > > > > >> discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would > > > > >> like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other > > direction. > > > > >> > > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however > > > > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > > > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a > > > > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was > > > > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on > > > > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory > > > > >> (I just had a very brief first > > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > > > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > > > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to > > > > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta > > theory. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > > >> > > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > > >> > > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > > > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of > MCA. > > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw > > > > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before > > > > >> this part of the discussion could take place. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > > > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only > > > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, > > > > >> but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas > > > > >> in papers that sample our different interests. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it > > > > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > > > > >> enhancing communication. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> get your copy at > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > > > >> interested. > > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> mike > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> > > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > > > > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > > > Division 27) > > > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > > > 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]< > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > 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]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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. > > > > > > > -- > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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. > > -- 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 Tue Mar 22 22:22:40 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:22:40 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike, Just wondering if you had any observations to share about the Yale Psycho-Educational Clinic? (or maybe you had left Yale by then?). Seemed like an interesting attempt to create a setting that would be neat to hear more about from the outside. -greg On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:19 PM, mike cole wrote: > Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. > > In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" which > you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials from is > called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. In > that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to declare > that "the activity is the context." > > So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to over > and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use of the > term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of this is > presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. > > Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. > > mike > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell > wrote: > > > Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with Roland. > > In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, and > > intersubjectivity. > > Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community > psychology > > by its professional organization, > > the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): > > ?'to promote theory development and research that increases > > our understanding of human behavior in context?' > > (SCRA 2010 )." > > > > After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the definition as > > the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history > > and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we noted > > "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a shared > > value, > > agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will > always > > be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, and > > emotions. In > > addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in > flux > > and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change over > > time (O?Donnell et al. > > 1993, p. 507)." > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC side > >> of Roland and Cliff's article. > >> > >> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a while > >> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. > >> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and > Intervention > >> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source of > >> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do > professionally. > >> > >> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified > >> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. > >> > >> mike > >> > >> -- > >> > >> 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 > -- 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 smago@uga.edu Wed Mar 23 05:55:34 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Reinventing Teacher Education series flyer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, I?m attaching a flier for a book series, Reinventing Teacher Education, for which I serve as one of four series editors. We hope to recruit proposals from all around the globe from those who have book projects that meet the series goals. Please consider this possibility for yourself, and of course feel free to share this flier widely. Thx,p -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RTE series flyer final March 16.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 322350 bytes Desc: RTE series flyer final March 16.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160323/de2de912/attachment-0001.pdf From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Mar 23 08:09:25 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:09:25 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56f2b1b1.6c42420a.21c06.ffffa57f@mx.google.com> Mike, This book seems to be focused specifically on the theme of the discussion as it is unfolding. Ingold's metaphor of rope as particular lines of carrying on together I read as questioning another metaphor of *totality* which carries on with notions of parts and wholes that articulate together or joint together into a context of totality. The existence of these parts that exist as substance which joint together coincidently. The rope metaphor is challenging this nice packaged *totality* metaphor where the parts fit together or are articulated with nothing left out. Your question asking what exists as excess beyond the boundary marking (naming) of activity setting may be reflected upon as parts or lines of inquiry. Parts carrying on or travelling within totality/wholes Lines carrying on within ropes Larry -----Original Message----- From: "mike cole" Sent: ?2016-?03-?21 12:22 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" which you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials from is called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. In that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to declare that "the activity is the context." So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to over and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use of the term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of this is presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. mike On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with Roland. > In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, and > intersubjectivity. > Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community psychology > by its professional organization, > the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): > ?'to promote theory development and research that increases > our understanding of human behavior in context?' > (SCRA 2010 )." > > After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the definition as > the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history > and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we noted > "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a shared > value, > agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will always > be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, and > emotions. In > addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in flux > and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change over > time (O?Donnell et al. > 1993, p. 507)." > > Cliff > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC side >> of Roland and Cliff's article. >> >> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a while >> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. >> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and Intervention >> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source of >> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do professionally. >> >> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified >> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. >> >> mike >> >> -- >> >> 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 mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Mar 23 08:19:38 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:19:38 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: <56f2b1b1.6c42420a.21c06.ffffa57f@mx.google.com> References: <56f2b1b1.6c42420a.21c06.ffffa57f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I forgot about Inglod, Larry. Of course! Can you pick out a parallel passage from his work. The rope metaphor also has an interesting affinity to the use of the pathways metaphor to describe ontogenetic development. mike On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Lplarry wrote: > Mike, > This book seems to be focused specifically on the theme of the discussion > as it is unfolding. > Ingold's metaphor of rope as particular lines of carrying on together I > read as questioning another metaphor of *totality* which carries on with > notions of parts and wholes that articulate together or joint together into > a context of totality. > The existence of these parts that exist as substance which joint together > coincidently. > > The rope metaphor is challenging this nice packaged *totality* metaphor > where the parts fit together or are articulated with nothing left out. > Your question asking what exists as excess beyond the boundary marking > (naming) of activity setting may be reflected upon as parts or lines of > inquiry. > > Parts carrying on or travelling within totality/wholes > Lines carrying on within ropes > Larry > > -----Original Message----- > From: "mike cole" > Sent: ?2016-?03-?21 12:22 PM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology > > Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. > > In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" which > you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials from is > called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. In > that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to declare > that "the activity is the context." > > So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to over > and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use of the > term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of this is > presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. > > Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. > > mike > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell > wrote: > > > Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with Roland. > > In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, and > > intersubjectivity. > > Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community > psychology > > by its professional organization, > > the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): > > ?'to promote theory development and research that increases > > our understanding of human behavior in context?' > > (SCRA 2010 )." > > > > After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the definition as > > the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history > > and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we noted > > "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a shared > > value, > > agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will > always > > be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, and > > emotions. In > > addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in > flux > > and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change over > > time (O?Donnell et al. > > 1993, p. 507)." > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC side > >> of Roland and Cliff's article. > >> > >> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a while > >> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. > >> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and > Intervention > >> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source of > >> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do > professionally. > >> > >> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified > >> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. > >> > >> mike > >> > >> -- > >> > >> 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 > -- 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 Wed Mar 23 08:35:38 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:35:38 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <56f2b1b1.6c42420a.21c06.ffffa57f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Quick question for anyone who knows about ropes and tensile strength: Is the tensile strength of the rope greater than the sum of the tensile strength of each of the threads? I ask b.c. I've been talking holism a lot lately and have been looking for a good metaphor for the notion of "emergent properties". -greg On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:19 AM, mike cole wrote: > I forgot about Inglod, Larry. Of course! > Can you pick out a parallel passage from his work. > The rope metaphor also has an interesting affinity to the use of the > pathways metaphor to describe ontogenetic development. > > mike > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > Mike, > > This book seems to be focused specifically on the theme of the discussion > > as it is unfolding. > > Ingold's metaphor of rope as particular lines of carrying on together I > > read as questioning another metaphor of *totality* which carries on with > > notions of parts and wholes that articulate together or joint together > into > > a context of totality. > > The existence of these parts that exist as substance which joint together > > coincidently. > > > > The rope metaphor is challenging this nice packaged *totality* metaphor > > where the parts fit together or are articulated with nothing left out. > > Your question asking what exists as excess beyond the boundary marking > > (naming) of activity setting may be reflected upon as parts or lines of > > inquiry. > > > > Parts carrying on or travelling within totality/wholes > > Lines carrying on within ropes > > Larry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "mike cole" > > Sent: ?2016-?03-?21 12:22 PM > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology > > > > Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. > > > > In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" > which > > you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials from > is > > called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. In > > that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to declare > > that "the activity is the context." > > > > So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to > over > > and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use of > the > > term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of this > is > > presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. > > > > Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. > > > > mike > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with > Roland. > > > In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, and > > > intersubjectivity. > > > Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community > > psychology > > > by its professional organization, > > > the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): > > > ?'to promote theory development and research that increases > > > our understanding of human behavior in context?' > > > (SCRA 2010 )." > > > > > > After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the definition > as > > > the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history > > > and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we noted > > > "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a shared > > > value, > > > agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will > > always > > > be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, and > > > emotions. In > > > addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in > > flux > > > and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change over > > > time (O?Donnell et al. > > > 1993, p. 507)." > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC > side > > >> of Roland and Cliff's article. > > >> > > >> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a > while > > >> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. > > >> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and > > Intervention > > >> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source > of > > >> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do > > professionally. > > >> > > >> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified > > >> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. > > >> > > >> mike > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Mar 23 08:49:49 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:49:49 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: <1458688452161.6789@iped.uio.no> References: <1458688452161.6789@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Oh! I am behind the discussion and Alfredo has found an excellent Ingold quote. My encounters with the metaphor? I think it was Ray McDermott's interview with Birdwhistle that I first encountered during the time when we were working together at Rock U. Then, teaching a course in Communication at UCSD on "how to read a film" with a colleague, I came upon the James passages, stuck into the middle of a compendium she gave me in connection with the films we were using. And somewhere in there, perhaps in re-reading Barker in connection with Jean Lave's invocation of his work, I hit upon Barker. I am a sucker for threes. I use the metaphor to think about the notion of different "strands of history" - phylogeny, cultural history, ontogeny, and microgenesis -- how they are woven and re-woven in the course of ontogeny. It seems to have as one of its intellectual sources, Goethe that Luria led me to. And so philosophers step in To weave a proof that things begin, Past question, with an origin. With first and second well rehearsed, Our third and forth can be deduced. And if no second were or first, No third or fourth could be produced. As weavers though, they don't amount to much. To docket living things past any doubt You cancel first the living spirit out; The parts lie in the hollow of your hand, You only lack the living link you banned. Goethe, 1988, p.95) I have posted that rope metaphor material before. This is the first time it has found resonance. Must have something to do with .... context. :-) Larry is correct in pointing out the "carrying on" dimension, the temporal dimension of the metaphor. Moreover, the carrying on is itself a multi-generational process (the necessary interwraping of fibres to make a whisp of a thread). Together, these kinds of thoughts suggest why the weaving metaphor of context has an intuitive feel to it. At least it does for me! On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Mike, > > thanks a lot for this collection of quotations on context as rope. Did you > collect them for some purpose before, or just came up with the connections > for the occasion? > Either way, in addition to thanks, wanted to point out yet another more > recent appropriation of the same metaphor in Ingold (2015), who is becoming > increasingly cited in MCA and neighboring fields. I have added on paragraph > to the document you have put together, which I attach here. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 22 March 2016 01:32 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > Metaphors of context as a rope, regarding the discussion on con-text, > fon/phoneme, climate/weather > > or not > > mike > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:27 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > Dear Colleagues. > > > > Mike: > > > > I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of foreground > > and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the process of an > event > > becoming a semantic event. I was under the influence of the discussion of > > fon/phonem and Rod's questions about which comes first. > > > > > > > > My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced it > > pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there is no > > name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue of > sharing > > is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not talking aloud, > with > > whom was I sharing an event being woven into a semantic event? The > semantic > > event happened, but the sharing? > > > > > > > > It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should find > > its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. > > > > > > > > Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should occur > > mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this list > > represents, seems non-accidental. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around > three > > uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of > > origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about > and > > speak to David's characterization of my views. > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I > understand > >> it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in systems of > concepts > >> and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant > there is > >> no significant distinction between the attention and activity and the > >> knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words allow > >> multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can exist > outside > >> any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but whether we > >> think lived experience is reduced or elevated to shareable knowledge, > that > >> knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality by > >> 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends on every > >> hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared branches with > private > >> roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared directly, > in > >> shared attention, for example, it does not depend on participants' > ability > >> to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It may be > >> possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing into words > >> (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or elevation) but > this > >> translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > >> > >> I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, a > >> generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, even if > it > >> has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking about > >> climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a flash of > >> lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of that beast! > >> > >> It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a > >> semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants > 'discover' > >> that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated into > >> 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the experience > of > >> 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I am still very > >> uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can be thought of as > >> semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a situation which has > been > >> shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with > anything > >> as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of 'Ah, I know > what to > >> expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of > experience, > >> elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of context. > >> > >> It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a chance > >> of sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with > >> these posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or > what > >> feels to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > >> > >> All the best, > >> > >> Rod > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > >> Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > >> > >> Rod: > >> > >> I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see a > >> cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech > community > >> as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who speak a > language) > >> and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture and > >> the elements of a material situational setting which are selected to be > >> semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of instantiation between > >> context of culture and context of situation is exactly what Malinowski > >> describes in the long addendum he appended to "The Meaning of Meaning" > >> in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about > >> distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context of > >> situation. > >> > >> Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the > >> relationship between context of culture and context of situation as > being > >> like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought about by > two > >> different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. The difference in > >> timescale does mean that in a context of culture certain phenomena > which I > >> will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena > which I > >> will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in a > >> context of situation, we find things the other way around: the > >> interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to get > >> foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and > therefore > >> backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > >> weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and the > >> extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is > accidental is > >> the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is the > >> pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation is...well, > >> incidental. > >> > >> Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" I > >> think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > >> McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: > taken > >> too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me the reason > >> why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother tongue as a > >> SECOND language is because in the long run climate determines weather > >> rather than the other way around; in a language, the context of culture > is > >> ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and even > >> precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing more than > the > >> sum total of contexts of situations. > >> > >> But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really do > >> create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine Nelson and > also > >> Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then we > >> should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the cline of > >> instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > >> > >> So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a > >> text, so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the > >> recording thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call > >> discourse, but such is the conservatism of academics we tend to > associate > >> text with writing rather than with thinking and with speech. If that > were > >> text, though, infants would have to wait for half a decade for it, and > they > >> don't. Text is semantic; we have text wherever we have the analysis of a > >> setting into a context and the sharing of that analysis through > >> communication. Text is the beast itself and not simply its footprints in > >> the snow. > >> > >> And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total of > >> everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and > understands: > >> it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was that > >> it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and in some > >> cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's literally > reducible > >> to a handful of written texts). It's not just "behaviour", or > "activity", > >> or "production". > >> > >> It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's not > >> activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not > production > >> because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production of > >> commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. But it's > >> value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in at least one > way > >> the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of > culture > >> is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume > that > >> since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge which > subtends > >> them must be shared as well. > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Macquarie University > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > >> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > >> > >> > David, > >> > > >> > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the discussion of > >> > the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > >> > > >> > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, in > >> > the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between people. It > >> > is when people connect their interests in some way and share meanings > >> > that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if you hadn't said > >> > anything when you presented the book to the 9 month old baby, the > >> > second presentation would be recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, > >> > this thing that we do' and this feeling of shared experience does seem > >> > to play an important part in infants' assisted ability to weave > >> > public, cultural meanings into their private, personal experiences. > >> > > >> > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context of > >> > culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and > >> > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are > >> > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving patterns > >> > and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues (discussed in > >> Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > >> > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > >> > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new developments in > >> > psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, > >> > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > >> > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys but > >> > only if they have played with the toys together - watching the > >> > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the > >> > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, > >> > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the infant's > >> > knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other researchers or > >> other toys). > >> > > >> > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no context > >> > without specific, personally experienced and woven text? Or is there a > >> > pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the weaver, influences > >> > and guides the texts which come to be formed? Infants are surrounded > >> > by a cultural context which is richly and densely shaped by the > >> > concept systems which have evolved out of the patterns in people's > >> > behaviour. What their caregivers do with, to and around them is shaped > >> > both by what those caregivers have seen other people do and by a long > >> > history of people hearing and reading about what other people do and > >> > have done. I would like to be able to use context to refer to the > >> > culturally patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice > >> > particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have > >> > understood correctly - and what are the chances?) to refer to a > >> > personal frame of reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the > >> > way the 'same' cultural environment can be woven into different > >> > contexts by different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word > >> > for the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join > >> > in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems > >> > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a new > >> > role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they belong > >> at the core of the group. > >> > > >> > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in Social > >> > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > >> > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan argument > >> > that infant development has to be understood in terms of interwoven > >> > processes of making sense and making relationships - drawing together > >> > a huge amount of research on early communication and meaning sharing. > >> > > >> > All the best, > >> > > >> > Rod > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > >> > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > >> > > >> > Rod: > >> > > >> > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > >> > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. We > >> > ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one Korean > >> > speaking parent and one English speaking one): > >> > > >> > a) English: What's this? > >> > b) English: Is it a ...? > >> > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > >> > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > >> > > >> > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the next > >> > three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not edible. > >> > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just colors > >> > but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are letters. > >> > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > >> > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That the > >> > problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > >> > > >> > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > >> > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND time > >> > I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! You could > >> > see that although the child had no idea what was being said, the child > >> > was might just be starting to think some proto-language equivalent of > >> > "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And > >> > after a minute or so, the child looked up, as if to see whether the > >> > large person making so much noise might be thinking something along > >> those lines too. > >> > > >> > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all > >> > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just perceptions, > >> > the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the same. But it > >> > seems that there's only text when something has been selected from the > >> > material setting by some human consciousness or consciousnesses for > >> > semiotic transformation; there's only text when there some kind of > >> > "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > >> > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS act > >> > of selection which transforms a material setting into a context, and > >> > it's premature to speak of context before that happens. So for example > >> > I wouldn't use the term context for the first week of work, only for > >> > the second. > >> > > >> > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and "cultural > >> > context", because I believe that context, like text, exists on a cline > >> > of instantiation. At one end, we have the relationship between a > >> > context of situation (Malinowski) and a text (Halliday). That's the > >> > end I'm at right now. At the other, we have the relationship between a > >> > context of culture (again, Malinowski) and...and a whole language > >> > system (again, Halliday). I gather that's the end at which the KEEP > >> > and the Community Development projects in Micronesia and the > >> > Delinquency Research plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > >> > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > >> > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well start > >> looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > >> > > >> > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole problem > >> > of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how exciting it is, > >> > and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you are an old hand. > >> > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to do > >> > next?) > >> > > >> > David Kellogg > >> > Macquarie University > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > >> > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > >> > > >> > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context > >> > > since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying > >> > > to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by > >> > > social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here > >> > > it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an > 'individual' > >> > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > >> > > > >> > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts > >> > > have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > >> > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a > >> > > family is of a different order to that available between otherwise > >> > > unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in > >> > > a history of shared experiences in common contexts the other is > >> > > rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) > >> > > which refer to > >> > experiences but 'from above' > >> > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never > >> > > completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this > >> > > is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a > >> > > conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is > >> > > not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I > >> > > like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' > >> > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather > >> than 'below' > >> > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > >> > > > >> > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > >> > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is > >> > > importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting > >> > > with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to > >> > > different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that > >> > > thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a > >> > > multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived > >> > > and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of > >> > > philosophical > >> > thought-play. > >> > > > >> > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > >> > > > >> > > All the best, > >> > > > >> > > Rod > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >> > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > >> > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > >> > > > >> > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > >> > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch > >> > > of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects > >> > > of > >> > human life. > >> > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > >> > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC > >> > > has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, > >> > > shared activity and the law of genetic development. > >> > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > >> > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in > >> > > the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced > >> > > as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything > >> > > I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood > >> > > and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss > >> > > the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, > >> > > originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can > >> > > index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only > >> > > achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since > >> > > the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of > >> > > practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept > >> > > can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > >> assimilated. > >> > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you > >> > > were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different > >> > > meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity > >> > > involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same > >> > > situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values." > >> > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to > >> > > be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, > >> > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > >> > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > >> > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they > >> > > are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step. > >> > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > >> > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation > >> > > by means of having a "center of commonality." > >> > > > >> > > Andy > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > > *Andy Blunden* > >> > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > >> > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought > >> > > > that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks > >> > > > in each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the > >> > > > infrequency of common citations). As described in our article, we > >> > > > and several of our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and > >> > > > have used CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. > >> > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > >> > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with > >> > Greenfield. > >> > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too > >> > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > >> > > > opposite > >> > direction. > >> > > > > >> > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems > >> > > > with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts > >> > > > to be a universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the > >> > > > symbol for change. > >> > > > > >> > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, > >> > > > psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in > >> > > > psychology of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to > >> > > > show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form > >> > > > that commonality with developmental, educational, cognitive, and > >> > neuro-psychology. > >> > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the > >> > > > process. > >> > > > > >> > > > Cliff > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was > >> > > >> not familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the > >> > > >> other papers in the symposium do a great job introducing and > >> > > >> concisely describing the field, and how it evolved from community > >> > > >> to cultural community psychology. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > >> > > >> literature had influenced the development of community psychology > >> > > >> itself from the start. As I progressed in my reading, I then > >> > > >> found clear references to these influences, which even meant the > >> > > >> delay of the publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the > >> > > >> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for the > >> > > >> project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What > >> > > >> were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be > >> > > >> interested to know about them in part because, while the paper > >> > > >> discusses many examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would > >> > > >> like to know more about the (possible) inputs in the other > >> direction. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > >> > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, however > >> > > >> brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > >> > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as a > >> > > >> move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this was > >> > > >> pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based on > >> > > >> dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory > >> > > >> (I just had a very brief first > >> > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > >> > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > >> > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > >> > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to > >> > > >> those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta > >> theory. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks, > >> > > >> Alfredo > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> ________________________________________ > >> > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> > > >> on behalf of mike cole > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > >> > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by > >> > > >> Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of > >> MCA. > >> > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw > >> > > >> as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed away before > >> > > >> this part of the discussion could take place. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > >> > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > >> > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only > >> > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity theory, > >> > > >> but because we have a tradition of chatting here about the ideas > >> > > >> in papers that sample our different interests. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > >> > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. May it > >> > > >> be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > >> > > >> enhancing communication. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> get your copy at > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > >> > > >> interested. > >> > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> mike > >> > > >> > >> > > >> -- > >> > > >> > >> > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > >> > > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >> > > > > >> > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > >> > > > Professor Emeritus > >> > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > >> > > > Division 27) > >> > > > > >> > > > University of Hawai'i > >> > > > Department of Psychology > >> > > > 2530 Dole Street > >> > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > ________________________________ > >> > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > >> > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > >> > > > >> > > 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]< > >> > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > >> > > >> > 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]< > >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Mar 23 08:54:50 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:54:50 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <56f2b1b1.6c42420a.21c06.ffffa57f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: When I was at Yale, Greg, I was a rat psychologist and an assistant professor. My work was not connected with the volunteer work we did in our local community. I knew Seymour, and visited the clinic, but I was already very distracted by the appearance of research in Africa to deal with -- a seemingly unrelated set of professional concerns. It was not until we began conducting research in New York that I made intellectual contact with Seymor again. As the MCA articles indicate, he been a central source of ideas for a great many people associated with LCHC. mike On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Quick question for anyone who knows about ropes and tensile strength: > > Is the tensile strength of the rope greater than the sum of the tensile > strength of each of the threads? > > I ask b.c. I've been talking holism a lot lately and have been looking for > a good metaphor for the notion of "emergent properties". > > -greg > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:19 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > I forgot about Inglod, Larry. Of course! > > Can you pick out a parallel passage from his work. > > The rope metaphor also has an interesting affinity to the use of the > > pathways metaphor to describe ontogenetic development. > > > > mike > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > Mike, > > > This book seems to be focused specifically on the theme of the > discussion > > > as it is unfolding. > > > Ingold's metaphor of rope as particular lines of carrying on together I > > > read as questioning another metaphor of *totality* which carries on > with > > > notions of parts and wholes that articulate together or joint together > > into > > > a context of totality. > > > The existence of these parts that exist as substance which joint > together > > > coincidently. > > > > > > The rope metaphor is challenging this nice packaged *totality* metaphor > > > where the parts fit together or are articulated with nothing left out. > > > Your question asking what exists as excess beyond the boundary marking > > > (naming) of activity setting may be reflected upon as parts or lines of > > > inquiry. > > > > > > Parts carrying on or travelling within totality/wholes > > > Lines carrying on within ropes > > > Larry > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: "mike cole" > > > Sent: ?2016-?03-?21 12:22 PM > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology > > > > > > Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. > > > > > > In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" > > which > > > you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials from > > is > > > called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. > In > > > that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to > declare > > > that "the activity is the context." > > > > > > So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to > > over > > > and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use of > > the > > > term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of this > > is > > > presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. > > > > > > Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with > > Roland. > > > > In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, > and > > > > intersubjectivity. > > > > Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community > > > psychology > > > > by its professional organization, > > > > the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): > > > > ?'to promote theory development and research that increases > > > > our understanding of human behavior in context?' > > > > (SCRA 2010 )." > > > > > > > > After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the definition > > as > > > > the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history > > > > and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we > noted > > > > "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a > shared > > > > value, > > > > agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will > > > always > > > > be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, > and > > > > emotions. In > > > > addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in > > > flux > > > > and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change > over > > > > time (O?Donnell et al. > > > > 1993, p. 507)." > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > > Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC > > side > > > >> of Roland and Cliff's article. > > > >> > > > >> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a > > while > > > >> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. > > > >> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and > > > Intervention > > > >> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source > > of > > > >> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do > > > professionally. > > > >> > > > >> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified > > > >> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. > > > >> > > > >> mike > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Wed Mar 23 09:08:36 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:08:36 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> Message-ID: Andy, Regarding your concern with the lock-step of feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations, I wonder if the same might be said of your concern with "the dangers inherent in appropriating expressions like these," and your insistence on "shared concepts" In the case of the concept, it seems like you may be asking for a lock-step of harmonious meaning in which the meanings of a concept are policed (by whom? whose conception of the concept rules the meaning?) to ensure that everyone is "thinking the same thing" when they deploy the concept (e.g., "zone of proximal development"). I wonder if Starr's "boundary objects" might be useful here to free up concepts a bit? Can we imagine concepts being differently meaningful to different people engaged in different activities? (and indeed, I wonder if this might be the only way to ensure that a concept can exist). I'm sympathetic to the concerns of some kind of Derrida-ian anarchy of meaning in which nothing means anything, and I understand that the particular value of a concept as a transformative act (e.g., to see the world differently) often depends on a very particular and specific meaning of that concept (the understanding of which has everything to do with the cultural and historical context of that concept!). But, when it comes to concepts, might there be some middle ground between legislated lock-step meaning and anarchical, meaningless meaning? (and perhaps this is necessary for "development" too, both individual and community, for who was able to really "get" Vygotsky upon first introduction?) Andy, upon a second reading of your post, I suspect that this is what you were getting at in your post, so please forgive me for sounding ignorant of your meaning! Delighted at the conversation about interdisciplinarity. Very best, greg On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. I think it's > very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch of us has different > concerns and shines light on different aspects of human life. But what we > really need is shared concepts, through which we can understand each other > and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has appropriated zone of > proximal development, activity setting, shared activity and the law of > genetic development. > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in the > early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as > 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I read in > your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in just > this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to > "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a > mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. Achieving > interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. But on > the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the larger > system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a > concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > assimilated. > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you were > using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning than I > would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors > feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I don't > even know it means to "feel values." > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be in > sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration (my > preferred term, rather than "joint action") necessarily entails both > moments of conflict as well as cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great > things, but I think they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone > marching in step. > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different > concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of > having a "center of commonality." > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > >> Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought that >> although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in each >> appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency of common >> citations). As described in our article, we and several of our colleagues >> have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT concepts in our research >> and intervention programs. As for influence in the opposite direction, >> perhaps the KEEP project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's >> work with Greenfield. Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and >> CHAT. I too would be interested to hear of additional influence in the >> opposite direction. >> >> You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with >> Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a >> universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for change. >> >> I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, >> psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology of >> interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the >> commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that commonality with >> developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. Hopefully this >> discussion format will facilitate interest in the process. >> >> Cliff >> >> On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not >>> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other papers in >>> the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely describing the >>> field, and how it evolved from community to cultural community psychology. >>> >>> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT literature >>> had influenced the development of community psychology itself from the >>> start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found clear references to >>> these influences, which even meant the delay of the publishing of Roland's >>> work, I assume, due to the important input that Vygotsky's publications >>> meant for the project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. >>> What were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be interested to >>> know about them in part because, while the paper discusses many examples in >>> which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about the >>> (possible) inputs in the other direction. >>> >>> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality in >>> psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions to >>> research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta >>> theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In the case of >>> CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based >>> on dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I >>> just had a very brief first contact) seems to build upon the notion of >>> psychosocial systems. This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who >>> surely is a central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other >>> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to those more >>> familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of mike cole >>> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion >>> >>> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- >>> >>> >>> >>> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by Roland >>> Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. Roland >>> wanted >>> to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as people with a >>> strong >>> family resemblance. He passed away before this part of the discussion >>> could >>> take place. >>> >>> >>> >>> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community >>> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred to >>> often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym for >>> cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a tradition of >>> chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our different >>> interests. >>> >>> >>> >>> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an invitation >>> to >>> people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be celebratory of >>> Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing communication. >>> >>> >>> >>> get your copy at >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current >>> >>> >>> >>> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be interested. >>> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! >>> >>> >>> >>> mike >>> >>> -- >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>> object >>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >> >> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. >> Professor Emeritus >> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division >> 27) >> >> University of Hawai?i >> Department of Psychology >> 2530 Dole Street >> Honolulu, HI 96822 >> >> >> >> > -- 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 Wed Mar 23 09:11:14 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:11:14 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <56f2b1b1.6c42420a.21c06.ffffa57f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Mike, Well, if it was just rats in mazes, you surely appreciated this from Sarason's piece that you just sent: "American psychology has always been a psychology of the individual. I have long maintained that if Thorndike had put more than one rat in the maze, we would have had a more productive and realistic basis for understanding social behavior. Riveting on the individual organism has had the effect of blunting the study of contexts-that is, ecology" So, did you ever try it? -greg On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > When I was at Yale, Greg, I was a rat psychologist and an assistant > professor. My work was not connected with the volunteer work we did in our > local community. I knew Seymour, and visited the clinic, but I was already > very distracted by the appearance of research in Africa to deal with -- a > seemingly unrelated set of professional concerns. > > It was not until we began conducting research in New York that I made > intellectual contact with Seymor again. As the MCA articles indicate, he > been a central source of ideas for a great many people associated with > LCHC. > mike > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > Quick question for anyone who knows about ropes and tensile strength: > > > > Is the tensile strength of the rope greater than the sum of the tensile > > strength of each of the threads? > > > > I ask b.c. I've been talking holism a lot lately and have been looking > for > > a good metaphor for the notion of "emergent properties". > > > > -greg > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:19 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > I forgot about Inglod, Larry. Of course! > > > Can you pick out a parallel passage from his work. > > > The rope metaphor also has an interesting affinity to the use of the > > > pathways metaphor to describe ontogenetic development. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > This book seems to be focused specifically on the theme of the > > discussion > > > > as it is unfolding. > > > > Ingold's metaphor of rope as particular lines of carrying on > together I > > > > read as questioning another metaphor of *totality* which carries on > > with > > > > notions of parts and wholes that articulate together or joint > together > > > into > > > > a context of totality. > > > > The existence of these parts that exist as substance which joint > > together > > > > coincidently. > > > > > > > > The rope metaphor is challenging this nice packaged *totality* > metaphor > > > > where the parts fit together or are articulated with nothing left > out. > > > > Your question asking what exists as excess beyond the boundary > marking > > > > (naming) of activity setting may be reflected upon as parts or lines > of > > > > inquiry. > > > > > > > > Parts carrying on or travelling within totality/wholes > > > > Lines carrying on within ropes > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: "mike cole" > > > > Sent: ?2016-?03-?21 12:22 PM > > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology > > > > > > > > Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. > > > > > > > > In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" > > > which > > > > you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials > from > > > is > > > > called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. > > In > > > > that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to > > declare > > > > that "the activity is the context." > > > > > > > > So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to > > > over > > > > and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use > of > > > the > > > > term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of > this > > > is > > > > presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. > > > > > > > > Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with > > > Roland. > > > > > In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, > > and > > > > > intersubjectivity. > > > > > Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community > > > > psychology > > > > > by its professional organization, > > > > > the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): > > > > > ?'to promote theory development and research that increases > > > > > our understanding of human behavior in context?' > > > > > (SCRA 2010 )." > > > > > > > > > > After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the > definition > > > as > > > > > the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history > > > > > and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we > > noted > > > > > "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a > > shared > > > > > value, > > > > > agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will > > > > always > > > > > be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, > > and > > > > > emotions. In > > > > > addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are > in > > > > flux > > > > > and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change > > over > > > > > time (O?Donnell et al. > > > > > 1993, p. 507)." > > > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the > CC > > > side > > > > >> of Roland and Cliff's article. > > > > >> > > > > >> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a > > > while > > > > >> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it > deserves.Attached. > > > > >> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and > > > > Intervention > > > > >> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a > source > > > of > > > > >> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do > > > > professionally. > > > > >> > > > > >> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified > > > > >> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. > > > > >> > > > > >> mike > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> > > > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > -- 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 Wed Mar 23 09:38:26 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:38:26 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: <1458688452161.6789@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Alfredo's inclusion of Ingold, reminded me of the striking image on the cover of archaeologist Ian Hodder's book Entangled. I've pasted the image below (sorry for file size!), but you can also find it at: http://www.amazon.com/Entangled-Archaeology-Relationships-between-Humans/dp/0470672129 -greg [image: Inline image 1] ? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 259118 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160323/b041e7f0/attachment.png From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Mar 23 10:12:44 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:12:44 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> Message-ID: <56f2ce96.6366420a.f6185.ffffbf04@mx.google.com> Greg, Your question; Is there a middle ground between legislated lock step meaning and derridian anarchic meaninglessness. calvin Schrag proposes we (split the difference) by proposing to follow a line of *transversal rationality*. If the vertical is hierarchal moving from the mountaintop heights of clarity downward and the horizontal is anarchic multiplicity of differences Schrag asks if we can split the difference travelling transversally between the vertical and horizontal. He gives as an example of this approach (pathway) Martin Matustiks book "Postnational Identity" This book sketches a basis for establishing an *entwined* travelling between political and self-identity. This entwining unfolds against the backdrop of Habermas' critical social theory AND existential reflections of Kierkegaard and Vaclav Havel. Entwining critical social theory with existential pathos and reflection. This entwining furthers a pathway to a praxis democracy that in Schrags words "moves between the universalism of hegemony-based con/sensus and a capitulation to unmanageable particularism and dis/sensus." This type of rationality (transversal) Schrag is suggesting *splits the difference* between doctrinal certitude of beliefs and practices as universally valid and the anarchy of Derrida. In slitting the difference one strives for con/vergence amidst di/vergence WITHOUT co/incidence. (a rope metaphor) This transversal rationality is a metaphor of travelling and unnfolding experience always acknowledging *excess* beyond naming boundary markings. It is one version of a possible *middle path*. -----Original Message----- From: "Greg Thompson" Sent: ?2016-?03-?23 9:11 AM To: "Andy Blunden" ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion Andy, Regarding your concern with the lock-step of feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations, I wonder if the same might be said of your concern with "the dangers inherent in appropriating expressions like these," and your insistence on "shared concepts" In the case of the concept, it seems like you may be asking for a lock-step of harmonious meaning in which the meanings of a concept are policed (by whom? whose conception of the concept rules the meaning?) to ensure that everyone is "thinking the same thing" when they deploy the concept (e.g., "zone of proximal development"). I wonder if Starr's "boundary objects" might be useful here to free up concepts a bit? Can we imagine concepts being differently meaningful to different people engaged in different activities? (and indeed, I wonder if this might be the only way to ensure that a concept can exist). I'm sympathetic to the concerns of some kind of Derrida-ian anarchy of meaning in which nothing means anything, and I understand that the particular value of a concept as a transformative act (e.g., to see the world differently) often depends on a very particular and specific meaning of that concept (the understanding of which has everything to do with the cultural and historical context of that concept!). But, when it comes to concepts, might there be some middle ground between legislated lock-step meaning and anarchical, meaningless meaning? (and perhaps this is necessary for "development" too, both individual and community, for who was able to really "get" Vygotsky upon first introduction?) Andy, upon a second reading of your post, I suspect that this is what you were getting at in your post, so please forgive me for sounding ignorant of your meaning! Delighted at the conversation about interdisciplinarity. Very best, greg On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. I think it's > very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch of us has different > concerns and shines light on different aspects of human life. But what we > really need is shared concepts, through which we can understand each other > and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has appropriated zone of > proximal development, activity setting, shared activity and the law of > genetic development. > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in the > early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as > 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I read in > your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in just > this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to > "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a > mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. Achieving > interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. But on > the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the larger > system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a > concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already > assimilated. > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you were > using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning than I > would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors > feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I don't > even know it means to "feel values." > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be in > sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration (my > preferred term, rather than "joint action") necessarily entails both > moments of conflict as well as cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great > things, but I think they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone > marching in step. > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different > concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of > having a "center of commonality." > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > >> Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought that >> although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in each >> appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency of common >> citations). As described in our article, we and several of our colleagues >> have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT concepts in our research >> and intervention programs. As for influence in the opposite direction, >> perhaps the KEEP project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's >> work with Greenfield. Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and >> CHAT. I too would be interested to hear of additional influence in the >> opposite direction. >> >> You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with >> Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a >> universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for change. >> >> I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science, >> psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology of >> interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the >> commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that commonality with >> developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology. Hopefully this >> discussion format will facilitate interest in the process. >> >> Cliff >> >> On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not >>> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other papers in >>> the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely describing the >>> field, and how it evolved from community to cultural community psychology. >>> >>> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT literature >>> had influenced the development of community psychology itself from the >>> start. As I progressed in my reading, I then found clear references to >>> these influences, which even meant the delay of the publishing of Roland's >>> work, I assume, due to the important input that Vygotsky's publications >>> meant for the project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. >>> What were other foundational influences to the field? I'd be interested to >>> know about them in part because, while the paper discusses many examples in >>> which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about the >>> (possible) inputs in the other direction. >>> >>> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality in >>> psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions to >>> research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta >>> theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In the case of >>> CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based >>> on dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I >>> just had a very brief first contact) seems to build upon the notion of >>> psychosocial systems. This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who >>> surely is a central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other >>> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to those more >>> familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of mike cole >>> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion >>> >>> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- >>> >>> >>> >>> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by Roland >>> Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. Roland >>> wanted >>> to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as people with a >>> strong >>> family resemblance. He passed away before this part of the discussion >>> could >>> take place. >>> >>> >>> >>> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community >>> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred to >>> often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym for >>> cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a tradition of >>> chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our different >>> interests. >>> >>> >>> >>> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an invitation >>> to >>> people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be celebratory of >>> Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing communication. >>> >>> >>> >>> get your copy at >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current >>> >>> >>> >>> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be interested. >>> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! >>> >>> >>> >>> mike >>> >>> -- >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>> object >>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >> >> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. >> Professor Emeritus >> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division >> 27) >> >> University of Hawai?i >> Department of Psychology >> 2530 Dole Street >> Honolulu, HI 96822 >> >> >> >> > -- 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 glassman.13@osu.edu Wed Mar 23 13:22:31 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:22:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <56f2b1b1.6c42420a.21c06.ffffa57f@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C6CFEC@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Greg, This quote from Seymour Sarason struck a nerve with me. Did psychology focus on the individual or did psychology focus on the simple. I am thinking more and more rich, complex ideas are introduced and then there often seems to be a regression to the simply - and I keep have to remind myself those things I believe often provide a limited picture - that our beliefs limit what we will let ourselves see. I am thinking perhaps this relates to meaning. As you mentioned does meaning have to be absolute or anarchic, is there something in the middle. I feel like the target article tries to speak to that when speaking of shared meaning in culture, almost that even shared meaning is a double edged sword, that we need it because it makes our work easier, but that it also restricts our possibilities - it is dangerous to go beyond the boundaries of shared meaning, but then we fear anarchy, perhaps our meaning id. But can we see meaning as a continuous process. I know - or I believe Bakhtin speaks to this, but honestly I don't have enough knowledge to talk about this. But I wonder (and this is based on readings I have been doing on technologists like Douglas Engelbart and Ted Nelson) something with simultaneously respect and struggle with. Respect because we take seriously where it comes from, we do not simply grab it from the air for our own purposes - something that happens more than we like to admit - but has a real history, a web like evolution that (at least now) can go back and explore. At the same time meaning is only as valuable as its function in meeting our needs. That we realize there is a chance, a good chance, that the meaning we have now may not work to solve our problems. So we try and understand - or re-understand it in our current circumstance, in the process changing its historical meaning for the next node in the web - I sort of feel that was part of the purpose of the article. That is re-engages us in re-understanding what zone of proximal development and activity settings mean in that shadow of problems faced by community psychology. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 12:11 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology Mike, Well, if it was just rats in mazes, you surely appreciated this from Sarason's piece that you just sent: "American psychology has always been a psychology of the individual. I have long maintained that if Thorndike had put more than one rat in the maze, we would have had a more productive and realistic basis for understanding social behavior. Riveting on the individual organism has had the effect of blunting the study of contexts-that is, ecology" So, did you ever try it? -greg On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > When I was at Yale, Greg, I was a rat psychologist and an assistant > professor. My work was not connected with the volunteer work we did in > our local community. I knew Seymour, and visited the clinic, but I was > already very distracted by the appearance of research in Africa to > deal with -- a seemingly unrelated set of professional concerns. > > It was not until we began conducting research in New York that I made > intellectual contact with Seymor again. As the MCA articles indicate, > he been a central source of ideas for a great many people associated > with LCHC. > mike > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > > Quick question for anyone who knows about ropes and tensile strength: > > > > Is the tensile strength of the rope greater than the sum of the > > tensile strength of each of the threads? > > > > I ask b.c. I've been talking holism a lot lately and have been > > looking > for > > a good metaphor for the notion of "emergent properties". > > > > -greg > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:19 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > I forgot about Inglod, Larry. Of course! > > > Can you pick out a parallel passage from his work. > > > The rope metaphor also has an interesting affinity to the use of > > > the pathways metaphor to describe ontogenetic development. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > This book seems to be focused specifically on the theme of the > > discussion > > > > as it is unfolding. > > > > Ingold's metaphor of rope as particular lines of carrying on > together I > > > > read as questioning another metaphor of *totality* which carries > > > > on > > with > > > > notions of parts and wholes that articulate together or joint > together > > > into > > > > a context of totality. > > > > The existence of these parts that exist as substance which joint > > together > > > > coincidently. > > > > > > > > The rope metaphor is challenging this nice packaged *totality* > metaphor > > > > where the parts fit together or are articulated with nothing > > > > left > out. > > > > Your question asking what exists as excess beyond the boundary > marking > > > > (naming) of activity setting may be reflected upon as parts or > > > > lines > of > > > > inquiry. > > > > > > > > Parts carrying on or travelling within totality/wholes Lines > > > > carrying on within ropes Larry > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: "mike cole" > > > > Sent: ?2016-?03-?21 12:22 PM > > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology > > > > > > > > Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. > > > > > > > > In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" > > > which > > > > you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott > > > > materials > from > > > is > > > > called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. > > In > > > > that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to > > declare > > > > that "the activity is the context." > > > > > > > > So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might > > > > refer to > > > over > > > > and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your > > > > use > of > > > the > > > > term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all > > > > of > this > > > is > > > > presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. > > > > > > > > Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article > > > > > with > > > Roland. > > > > > In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, > > > > > culture, > > and > > > > > intersubjectivity. > > > > > Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of > > > > > community > > > > psychology > > > > > by its professional organization, the Society for Community > > > > > Research and Action (SCRA): > > > > > ?'to promote theory development and research that increases > > > > > our understanding of human behavior in context?' > > > > > (SCRA 2010 )." > > > > > > > > > > After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the > definition > > > as > > > > > the "shared meanings of people, developed through their > > > > > history and activities." Also in our discussion of > > > > > intersubjectivity, we > > noted > > > > > "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be > > > > > a > > shared > > > > > value, > > > > > agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there > > > > > will > > > > always > > > > > be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, > > > > > experience, > > and > > > > > emotions. In > > > > > addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics > > > > > are > in > > > > flux > > > > > and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants > > > > > change > > over > > > > > time (O?Donnell et al. > > > > > 1993, p. 507)." > > > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on > > > > > the > CC > > > side > > > > >> of Roland and Cliff's article. > > > > >> > > > > >> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of > > > > >> MCA a > > > while > > > > >> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it > deserves.Attached. > > > > >> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and > > > > Intervention > > > > >> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a > source > > > of > > > > >> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do > > > > professionally. > > > > >> > > > > >> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff > > > > >> identified secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. > > > > >> > > > > >> mike > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> > > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science > > > > >> with > an > > > > >> object > > > > >> that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > >> of Settings.pdf> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > -- 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 cliffo@hawaii.edu Wed Mar 23 13:31:32 2016 From: cliffo@hawaii.edu (Cliff O'Donnell) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:31:32 -1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greg, for an overview of the Yale Psycho-Educational Clinic, see: Goldenburg, I. and Levine, M. (1969), The development and evolution of the YALE PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL CLINIC. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 18, 101?110. doi: 10.1111/j. 1464-0597.1969.tb00671.x Cliff On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:22 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Mike, > Just wondering if you had any observations to share about the Yale > Psycho-Educational Clinic? > (or maybe you had left Yale by then?). > Seemed like an interesting attempt to create a setting that would be > neat > to hear more about from the outside. > -greg > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:19 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. >> >> In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity >> setting" which >> you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials >> from is >> called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and >> context. In >> that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to >> declare >> that "the activity is the context." >> >> So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer >> to over >> and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your >> use of the >> term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of >> this is >> presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. >> >> Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. >> >> mike >> >> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with >>> Roland. >>> In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, >>> culture, and >>> intersubjectivity. >>> Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community >> psychology >>> by its professional organization, >>> the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): >>> ?'to promote theory development and research that increases >>> our understanding of human behavior in context?' >>> (SCRA 2010 )." >>> >>> After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the >>> definition as >>> the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history >>> and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we >>> noted >>> "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a >>> shared >>> value, >>> agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will >> always >>> be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, >>> and >>> emotions. In >>> addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are >>> in >> flux >>> and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change >>> over >>> time (O?Donnell et al. >>> 1993, p. 507)." >>> >>> Cliff >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>> Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the >>> CC side >>>> of Roland and Cliff's article. >>>> >>>> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA >>>> a while >>>> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. >>>> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and >> Intervention >>>> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a >>>> source of >>>> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do >> professionally. >>>> >>>> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified >>>> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 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 >> > > > > -- > 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 Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27) University of Hawai?i Department of Psychology 2530 Dole Street Honolulu, HI 96822 From ablunden@mira.net Wed Mar 23 17:11:49 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:11:49 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <1458404252827.35436@iped.uio.no> <577031B8-C909-49BC-9D43-F2EF86D77ADC@hawaii.edu> <56EE7CA2.1070805@mira.net> Message-ID: <56F330C5.7010307@mira.net> Greg, to respond to your question on the strength of a cable. It is actually calculated the same way as a single piece of steel, but cable brings the advantages of flexibility and "insurance", in that a defect in one strand does not run across the whole cable. So it is stronger by being more reliable. My remark about "lock step" was that CCP seemed to rely on people doing things together (such as playing games or doing routine work together) so that people had the same experience, like marching in time to the same music. It seems to me that the bonding and understanding which arises from collaboration is the creative mutual appropriation which arises out of conflict. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. So for CCP "intersubjectivity" indicating this empathy arising from identical experiences. For CHAT of course "intersubjectivity" is a very general category referring to participating in a same activity, but probably in very different ways and with different feelings and beliefs. On shared concepts, of course we need shared concepts. My "warning" was just the obvious point that appropriating concepts can be the actual source of misunderstanding. An example of this is the constant complaints by Russians that the Americans have misunderstood Vygotsky. Care has to be taken. At first sight a new word seems to fit nicely into one's own point of view because it is "appropriated" and given a meaning which makes sense within the system of one's own view. So one and the same word has different meanings in different currents of thinking. It is necessary to enter somewhat more into the totality of ideas from which a word comes to acquire the concept it is indicating. Nonetheless, understanding a few concepts, properly, belonging to another science, is most important to successful interdisciplinarity. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 24/03/2016 3:08 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Andy, > > Regarding your concern with the lock-step of feeling the > same emotions and values in the same situations, I wonder > if the same might be said of your concern with "the > dangers inherent in appropriating expressions like these," > and your insistence on "shared concepts" > > In the case of the concept, it seems like you may be > asking for a lock-step of harmonious meaning in which the > meanings of a concept are policed (by whom? whose > conception of the concept rules the meaning?) to ensure > that everyone is "thinking the same thing" when they > deploy the concept (e.g., "zone of proximal development"). > > I wonder if Starr's "boundary objects" might be useful > here to free up concepts a bit? > > Can we imagine concepts being differently meaningful to > different people engaged in different activities? (and > indeed, I wonder if this might be the only way to ensure > that a concept can exist). > > I'm sympathetic to the concerns of some kind of > Derrida-ian anarchy of meaning in which nothing means > anything, and I understand that the particular value of a > concept as a transformative act (e.g., to see the world > differently) often depends on a very particular and > specific meaning of that concept (the understanding of > which has everything to do with the cultural and > historical context of that concept!). > > But, when it comes to concepts, might there be some middle > ground between legislated lock-step meaning and > anarchical, meaningless meaning? (and perhaps this is > necessary for "development" too, both individual and > community, for who was able to really "get" Vygotsky upon > first introduction?) > > Andy, upon a second reading of your post, I suspect that > this is what you were getting at in your post, so please > forgive me for sounding ignorant of your meaning! > > Delighted at the conversation about interdisciplinarity. > > Very best, > greg > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, > Cliff. I think it's very productive, even necessary, > that each little bunch of us has different concerns > and shines light on different aspects of human life. > But what we really need is shared concepts, through > which we can understand each other and collaborate. So > it is good news that CC has appropriated zone of > proximal development, activity setting, shared > activity and the law of genetic development. > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers > inherent in appropriating expressions like these > though. You pointed out that in the early days of CC, > "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as > 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but > everything I read in your paper tends to suggest > "culture" is still understood and used in just this > sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the > meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after > all, originated in pretty much a mono-cultural > situation. One word can index different concepts. > Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by > means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since > the content of a concept is ultimately the larger > system of practices to which it is indigenous, it > seems almost as if a concept can only be shared when > the broader context of its use is already assimilated. > Along these lines, it was a little while before I > realised that you were using the word > "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning > than I would. It seems to denote empathy. > "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors feeling the same > emotions and values in the same situations," and I > don't even know it means to "feel values." > Connected with this the description of joint action, > turned out to be in sharp contrast to my conception of > it. As I see it, collaboration (my preferred term, > rather than "joint action") necessarily entails both > moments of conflict as well as cooperation. Harmony > and bliss are great things, but I think they are > rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching > in step. > I suspect that these two examples of shared words > indicating different concepts are connected to the > hope of mutual appropriation by means of having a > "center of commonality." > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. > Roland and I thought that although CC and CHAT > have many common interests, most folks in each > appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by > the infrequency of common citations). As described > in our article, we and several of our colleagues > have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT > concepts in our research and intervention > programs. As for influence in the opposite > direction, perhaps the KEEP project, Seymour > Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with > Greenfield. Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to > both CC and CHAT. I too would be interested to > hear of additional influence in the opposite > direction. > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on > psychosocial systems with Vygotsky as an important > source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a > universal theory of how change occurs using Delta > as the symbol for change. > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of > cognitive science, psycho-neurology, and a > potential center of commonality in psychology of > interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., > to show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have > the potential to form that commonality with > developmental, educational, cognitive, and > neuro-psychology. Hopefully this discussion format > will facilitate interest in the process. > > Cliff > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this > interesting article. I was not familiar to > cultural community psychology and this and the > other papers in the symposium do a great job > introducing and concisely describing the > field, and how it evolved from community to > cultural community psychology. > > As I was reading, I wondered how much the > influence of CHAT literature had influenced > the development of community psychology itself > from the start. As I progressed in my reading, > I then found clear references to these > influences, which even meant the delay of the > publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to > the important input that Vygotsky's > publications meant for the project. But then I > wondered on what had been other sources. What > were other foundational influences to the > field? I'd be interested to know about them in > part because, while the paper discusses many > examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I > would like to know more about the (possible) > inputs in the other direction. > > Also, I found interesting the mention of a new > center of commonality in psychology in > general. I was glad to see, however brief, > mentions to research in cognitive science and > psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory > is mentioned as a move forward towards > integration. In the case of CHAT, this was > pursued by means of developing a scientific > discipline based on dialectical materialism > and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I > just had a very brief first contact) seems to > build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, > who surely is a central source. Again, here I > would love to hear what other insights/sources > are involved that may provide new insights to > those more familiar to CHAT but not so much > with CC and Delta theory. > > Thanks, > Alfredo > > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on > behalf of mike cole > > Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > > We thought it appropriate to put up for > discussion the paper by Roland > Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most > recent issue of MCA. Roland wanted > to stimulate discussion among what he and > Cliff saw as people with a strong > family resemblance. He passed away before this > part of the discussion could > take place. > > > > Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual > relevance of Cultural Community > Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in > the approach referred to > often in these pages as CHAT, not only because > it is an acronym for > cultural-historical activity theory, but > because we have a tradition of > chatting here about the ideas in papers that > sample our different interests. > > > > In this case, Cliff is intending to send this > message and an invitation to > people from Community Psychology to join in. > May it be celebratory of > Roland's long life seeking to promote growth > enhancing communication. > > > > get your copy at > > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > > Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you > think might be interested. > Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, > interesting! > > > > mike > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > Professor Emeritus > Past-President, Society for Community Research and > Action (APA Division 27) > > University of Hawai?i > Department of Psychology > 2530 Dole Street > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > -- > 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 Wed Mar 23 17:21:08 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:21:08 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Cliff, thanks for this. Michael, yes, I'm entirely in agreement about the importance of the intransigence of a meaning of a concept for the individual - it has to be something outside of us in order to be of value to us, i.e. to enable newness, growth, development. Where I get tripped up is: does meaning have to be intransigent for a given community? I suppose the answer is: yes, if the point is the growth of that community. But maybe not if the point is the growth of the individuals in that community (for whom the meaning may indeed be intransigent). Maybe. -greg On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > Greg, for an overview of the Yale Psycho-Educational Clinic, see: > > Goldenburg, I. and Levine, M. (1969), The development and evolution of the > YALE PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL CLINIC. Applied Psychology: An International > Review, 18, 101?110. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1969.tb00671.x > > Cliff > > > On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:22 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Mike, >> Just wondering if you had any observations to share about the Yale >> Psycho-Educational Clinic? >> (or maybe you had left Yale by then?). >> Seemed like an interesting attempt to create a setting that would be neat >> to hear more about from the outside. >> -greg >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:19 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >> Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. >>> >>> In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" >>> which >>> you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials from >>> is >>> called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. In >>> that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to declare >>> that "the activity is the context." >>> >>> So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to >>> over >>> and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use of >>> the >>> term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of this >>> is >>> presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. >>> >>> Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. >>> >>> mike >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with Roland. >>>> In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, and >>>> intersubjectivity. >>>> Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community >>>> >>> psychology >>> >>>> by its professional organization, >>>> the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): >>>> ?'to promote theory development and research that increases >>>> our understanding of human behavior in context?' >>>> (SCRA 2010 )." >>>> >>>> After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the definition as >>>> the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history >>>> and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we noted >>>> "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a shared >>>> value, >>>> agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will >>>> >>> always >>> >>>> be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, and >>>> emotions. In >>>> addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in >>>> >>> flux >>> >>>> and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change over >>>> time (O?Donnell et al. >>>> 1993, p. 507)." >>>> >>>> Cliff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC >>>> side >>>> >>>>> of Roland and Cliff's article. >>>>> >>>>> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a >>>>> while >>>>> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. >>>>> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and >>>>> >>>> Intervention >>> >>>> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source of >>>>> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do >>>>> >>>> professionally. >>> >>>> >>>>> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified >>>>> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. >>>>> >>>>> mike >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > Professor Emeritus > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27) > > University of Hawai?i > Department of Psychology > 2530 Dole Street > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > -- 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 ronaldg@ucla.edu Wed Mar 23 17:48:05 2016 From: ronaldg@ucla.edu (Ronald Gallimore) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 17:48:05 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <631D09C2-57A2-4A59-92A4-4097A3BD22CA@ucla.edu> Mike? ?Activity setting? is the terminology Tom Weisner and I used in a AAA paper (attached) ?constructed? by us to reflect the impact on our thinking of the Whitings Psychocultural Theory and Activity Theory/Vygotsky. Roland and I used it in in Rousing Minds to Life. We were trying at the time to see a convergence in thinking in different realms of psychology and anthropology. The Psychocultural folks used ?settings? which seemed to map onto ?activity? as you and many others were introducing to American psychology. From the Conclusions of Weisner & Gallimore (1985): "The convergence of these two theories suggests some interesting hypotheses: First, for cultural change to have effects on individuals, ecocultural forces must be instantiated into activity settings which are a part of the everyday life of the individual. Changes which never influence goals, motives, personnel, tasks, and task requirements will have little effect on individual cognition, emotion and behavior. This is as true of the home and community setting, as it is for the classroom: efforts to "make culture relevant for minority education" which do not also have the effect of reshaping relevant features of classroom activity settings are unlikely to produce strong effects on learning. A second hypothesis relates specifically to children and to efforts to affect child development through parent training. Many programs rely on training of parents to achieve socially desirable goals. The convergence of activity and ecocultural theory suggests that none of these will have lasting effects unless they create activities which are supported by the local ecocultural niche. A related version of the same hypothesis is a requirement that any effort to train parents must require evidence that such training is not only supported by the niche, but is adopted by other parents and diffused through the niche as a valued innovation by kinsmen and other culture members. Uniting of activity and ecocultural theory provides an attractive alternative to explanations using packed, global terms, such as differential levels of "stimulation" for children, or packaged family-level measures such as socioeconomic status rankings. Used in this way stimulation has roughly the same explanatory properties as bad night air. Something about better educated mothers makes them more stimulating--but what? What are the mediating mechanisms? The combination of the two theories provides a basis for specifying at the level of cultural activities what it is that accounts for differential behavior, and at the same time provides a principled basis for identifying the ecocultural context which gives rise to the activities. What matters is the ecocultural factors that in turn influence the who, why, what and how of the activities in which children spend their time.? ron > On Mar 23, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Cliff, thanks for this. > Michael, yes, I'm entirely in agreement about the importance of the > intransigence of a meaning of a concept for the individual - it has to be > something outside of us in order to be of value to us, i.e. to enable > newness, growth, development. > > Where I get tripped up is: does meaning have to be intransigent for a given > community? I suppose the answer is: yes, if the point is the growth of that > community. But maybe not if the point is the growth of the individuals in > that community (for whom the meaning may indeed be intransigent). > > Maybe. > -greg > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > >> Greg, for an overview of the Yale Psycho-Educational Clinic, see: >> >> Goldenburg, I. and Levine, M. (1969), The development and evolution of the >> YALE PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL CLINIC. Applied Psychology: An International >> Review, 18, 101?110. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1969.tb00671.x >> >> Cliff >> >> >> On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:22 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: >> >> Mike, >>> Just wondering if you had any observations to share about the Yale >>> Psycho-Educational Clinic? >>> (or maybe you had left Yale by then?). >>> Seemed like an interesting attempt to create a setting that would be neat >>> to hear more about from the outside. >>> -greg >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:19 PM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>> Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. >>>> >>>> In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" >>>> which >>>> you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials from >>>> is >>>> called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. In >>>> that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to declare >>>> that "the activity is the context." >>>> >>>> So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to >>>> over >>>> and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use of >>>> the >>>> term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of this >>>> is >>>> presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. >>>> >>>> Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with Roland. >>>>> In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, and >>>>> intersubjectivity. >>>>> Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community >>>>> >>>> psychology >>>> >>>>> by its professional organization, >>>>> the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): >>>>> ?'to promote theory development and research that increases >>>>> our understanding of human behavior in context?' >>>>> (SCRA 2010 )." >>>>> >>>>> After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the definition as >>>>> the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history >>>>> and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we noted >>>>> "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a shared >>>>> value, >>>>> agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will >>>>> >>>> always >>>> >>>>> be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, and >>>>> emotions. In >>>>> addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in >>>>> >>>> flux >>>> >>>>> and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change over >>>>> time (O?Donnell et al. >>>>> 1993, p. 507)." >>>>> >>>>> Cliff >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC >>>>> side >>>>> >>>>>> of Roland and Cliff's article. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a >>>>>> while >>>>>> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. >>>>>> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and >>>>>> >>>>> Intervention >>>> >>>>> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source of >>>>>> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do >>>>>> >>>>> professionally. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified >>>>>> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. >>>>>> >>>>>> mike >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> >> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. >> Professor Emeritus >> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27) >> >> University of Hawai?i >> Department of Psychology >> 2530 Dole Street >> Honolulu, HI 96822 >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Mar 23 18:17:00 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:17:00 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: <631D09C2-57A2-4A59-92A4-4097A3BD22CA@ucla.edu> References: <631D09C2-57A2-4A59-92A4-4097A3BD22CA@ucla.edu> Message-ID: It is great to see your voice, Ron, after such a long absence! Perfect timing for intervening to bring your first person perspective to the days of the kamehameha project, too. A very neat summary of reasons for bringing Vygotsky and activity into the discussion. The summary make a point that has been the subject of a lot of discussion recently -- how to ensure that agency for change in such projects comes from what you call the ecocultural niche. How, in intervention research, can one, does one, position oneself as the instrument of the community in its efforts to develop, however community is instantiated in the research. Is there a recent historical account of that project? Something along the lines of the paper that Cliff posted about Seymous Sarason's activity setting, an old building on the edge of a freeway extension, in New Haven? mike On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Ronald Gallimore wrote: > Mike? > > ?Activity setting? is the terminology Tom Weisner and I used in a AAA > paper (attached) ?constructed? by us to reflect the impact on our thinking > of the Whitings Psychocultural Theory and Activity Theory/Vygotsky. Roland > and I used it in in Rousing Minds to Life. We were trying at the time to > see a convergence in thinking in different realms of psychology and > anthropology. The Psychocultural folks used ?settings? which seemed to map > onto ?activity? as you and many others were introducing to American > psychology. > > From the Conclusions of Weisner & Gallimore (1985): > > "The convergence of these two theories suggests some interesting > hypotheses: First, for cultural change to have effects on individuals, > ecocultural forces must be instantiated into activity settings which are a > part of the everyday life of the individual. Changes which never influence > goals, motives, personnel, tasks, and task requirements will have little > effect on individual cognition, emotion and behavior. This is as true of > the home and community setting, as it is for the classroom: efforts to > "make culture relevant for minority education" which do not also have the > effect of reshaping relevant features of classroom activity settings are > unlikely to produce strong effects on learning. > > A second hypothesis relates specifically to children and to efforts to > affect child development through parent training. Many programs rely on > training of parents to achieve socially desirable goals. The convergence of > activity and ecocultural theory suggests that none of these will have > lasting effects unless they create activities which are supported by the > local ecocultural niche. > > A related version of the same hypothesis is a requirement that any effort > to train parents must require evidence that such training is not only > supported by the niche, but is adopted by other parents and diffused > through the niche as a valued innovation by kinsmen and other culture > members. > > Uniting of activity and ecocultural theory provides an attractive > alternative to explanations using packed, global terms, such as > differential levels of "stimulation" for children, or packaged family-level > measures such as socioeconomic status rankings. Used in this way > stimulation has roughly the same explanatory properties as bad night air. > Something about better educated mothers makes them more stimulating--but > what? What are the mediating mechanisms? The combination of the two > theories provides a basis for specifying at the level of cultural > activities what it is that accounts for differential behavior, and at the > same time provides a principled basis for identifying the ecocultural > context which gives rise to the activities. What matters is the ecocultural > factors that in turn influence the who, why, what and how of the activities > in which children spend their time.? > > ron > > > > > On Mar 23, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > > Cliff, thanks for this. > > Michael, yes, I'm entirely in agreement about the importance of the > > intransigence of a meaning of a concept for the individual - it has to be > > something outside of us in order to be of value to us, i.e. to enable > > newness, growth, development. > > > > Where I get tripped up is: does meaning have to be intransigent for a > given > > community? I suppose the answer is: yes, if the point is the growth of > that > > community. But maybe not if the point is the growth of the individuals in > > that community (for whom the meaning may indeed be intransigent). > > > > Maybe. > > -greg > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Cliff O'Donnell > wrote: > > > >> Greg, for an overview of the Yale Psycho-Educational Clinic, see: > >> > >> Goldenburg, I. and Levine, M. (1969), The development and evolution of > the > >> YALE PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL CLINIC. Applied Psychology: An International > >> Review, 18, 101?110. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1969.tb00671.x > >> > >> Cliff > >> > >> > >> On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:22 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > >> > >> Mike, > >>> Just wondering if you had any observations to share about the Yale > >>> Psycho-Educational Clinic? > >>> (or maybe you had left Yale by then?). > >>> Seemed like an interesting attempt to create a setting that would be > neat > >>> to hear more about from the outside. > >>> -greg > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:19 PM, mike cole wrote: > >>> > >>> Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. > >>>> > >>>> In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" > >>>> which > >>>> you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials > from > >>>> is > >>>> called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. > In > >>>> that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to > declare > >>>> that "the activity is the context." > >>>> > >>>> So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to > >>>> over > >>>> and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use > of > >>>> the > >>>> term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of > this > >>>> is > >>>> presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. > >>>> > >>>> Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. > >>>> > >>>> mike > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with > Roland. > >>>>> In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, > and > >>>>> intersubjectivity. > >>>>> Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community > >>>>> > >>>> psychology > >>>> > >>>>> by its professional organization, > >>>>> the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): > >>>>> ?'to promote theory development and research that increases > >>>>> our understanding of human behavior in context?' > >>>>> (SCRA 2010 )." > >>>>> > >>>>> After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the > definition as > >>>>> the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history > >>>>> and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we > noted > >>>>> "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a > shared > >>>>> value, > >>>>> agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will > >>>>> > >>>> always > >>>> > >>>>> be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, > and > >>>>> emotions. In > >>>>> addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in > >>>>> > >>>> flux > >>>> > >>>>> and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change > over > >>>>> time (O?Donnell et al. > >>>>> 1993, p. 507)." > >>>>> > >>>>> Cliff > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC > >>>>> side > >>>>> > >>>>>> of Roland and Cliff's article. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a > >>>>>> while > >>>>>> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. > >>>>>> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and > >>>>>> > >>>>> Intervention > >>>> > >>>>> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source > of > >>>>>> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do > >>>>>> > >>>>> professionally. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified > >>>>>> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> mike > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > >> Professor Emeritus > >> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division > 27) > >> > >> University of Hawai?i > >> Department of Psychology > >> 2530 Dole Street > >> Honolulu, HI 96822 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ronaldg@ucla.edu Wed Mar 23 19:15:33 2016 From: ronaldg@ucla.edu (Ronald Gallimore) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:15:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <631D09C2-57A2-4A59-92A4-4097A3BD22CA@ucla.edu> Message-ID: Mike? Thanks for the welcoming voice. I?ve written two retrospectives, auto-biographical reflections on KEEP (Kamehameha Early Education Project). They are not theoretical or even empirical or truly historical. I?m happy to share if you think the MCA community will find of interest. Planning, executing, and grieving over intervention and change projects have been more my lot than most anything else. At least that?s what drove me in my 50+ years of trying to figure things out. How an outside agent seeks to position within a niche might better be framed as: in what role does a niche afford an outside agent? So the first question re: positions of an external change agent is this: What activity settings (AS) are available in the everyday routines of families, schools, workplaces, communities, etc.? Which activity setting offers a ?slot? for an external agent to participate, what is the work done, why is this working being done (perceptions may differ among participants), and what are the participant structures and interaction norms? Sometimes there is no AS and the first and often time-consuming job is to create one. ron > On Mar 23, 2016, at 6:17 PM, mike cole wrote: > > It is great to see your voice, Ron, after such a long absence! > > Perfect timing for intervening to bring your first person perspective to > the days of the kamehameha project, too. > > A very neat summary of reasons for bringing Vygotsky and activity into the > discussion. The summary make a point that has been the subject of a lot of > discussion recently -- how to ensure that agency for change in such > projects comes from what you call the ecocultural niche. > > How, in intervention research, can one, does one, position oneself as the > instrument of the community in its efforts to develop, however community is > instantiated in the research. > > Is there a recent historical account of that project? Something along the > lines of the paper that Cliff posted about Seymous Sarason's activity > setting, an old building > on the edge of a freeway extension, in New Haven? > > mike > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Ronald Gallimore wrote: > >> Mike? >> >> ?Activity setting? is the terminology Tom Weisner and I used in a AAA >> paper (attached) ?constructed? by us to reflect the impact on our thinking >> of the Whitings Psychocultural Theory and Activity Theory/Vygotsky. Roland >> and I used it in in Rousing Minds to Life. We were trying at the time to >> see a convergence in thinking in different realms of psychology and >> anthropology. The Psychocultural folks used ?settings? which seemed to map >> onto ?activity? as you and many others were introducing to American >> psychology. >> >> From the Conclusions of Weisner & Gallimore (1985): >> >> "The convergence of these two theories suggests some interesting >> hypotheses: First, for cultural change to have effects on individuals, >> ecocultural forces must be instantiated into activity settings which are a >> part of the everyday life of the individual. Changes which never influence >> goals, motives, personnel, tasks, and task requirements will have little >> effect on individual cognition, emotion and behavior. This is as true of >> the home and community setting, as it is for the classroom: efforts to >> "make culture relevant for minority education" which do not also have the >> effect of reshaping relevant features of classroom activity settings are >> unlikely to produce strong effects on learning. >> >> A second hypothesis relates specifically to children and to efforts to >> affect child development through parent training. Many programs rely on >> training of parents to achieve socially desirable goals. The convergence of >> activity and ecocultural theory suggests that none of these will have >> lasting effects unless they create activities which are supported by the >> local ecocultural niche. >> >> A related version of the same hypothesis is a requirement that any effort >> to train parents must require evidence that such training is not only >> supported by the niche, but is adopted by other parents and diffused >> through the niche as a valued innovation by kinsmen and other culture >> members. >> >> Uniting of activity and ecocultural theory provides an attractive >> alternative to explanations using packed, global terms, such as >> differential levels of "stimulation" for children, or packaged family-level >> measures such as socioeconomic status rankings. Used in this way >> stimulation has roughly the same explanatory properties as bad night air. >> Something about better educated mothers makes them more stimulating--but >> what? What are the mediating mechanisms? The combination of the two >> theories provides a basis for specifying at the level of cultural >> activities what it is that accounts for differential behavior, and at the >> same time provides a principled basis for identifying the ecocultural >> context which gives rise to the activities. What matters is the ecocultural >> factors that in turn influence the who, why, what and how of the activities >> in which children spend their time.? >> >> ron >> >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Greg Thompson >> wrote: >>> >>> Cliff, thanks for this. >>> Michael, yes, I'm entirely in agreement about the importance of the >>> intransigence of a meaning of a concept for the individual - it has to be >>> something outside of us in order to be of value to us, i.e. to enable >>> newness, growth, development. >>> >>> Where I get tripped up is: does meaning have to be intransigent for a >> given >>> community? I suppose the answer is: yes, if the point is the growth of >> that >>> community. But maybe not if the point is the growth of the individuals in >>> that community (for whom the meaning may indeed be intransigent). >>> >>> Maybe. >>> -greg >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Cliff O'Donnell >> wrote: >>> >>>> Greg, for an overview of the Yale Psycho-Educational Clinic, see: >>>> >>>> Goldenburg, I. and Levine, M. (1969), The development and evolution of >> the >>>> YALE PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL CLINIC. Applied Psychology: An International >>>> Review, 18, 101?110. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1969.tb00671.x >>>> >>>> Cliff >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:22 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>> >>>> Mike, >>>>> Just wondering if you had any observations to share about the Yale >>>>> Psycho-Educational Clinic? >>>>> (or maybe you had left Yale by then?). >>>>> Seemed like an interesting attempt to create a setting that would be >> neat >>>>> to hear more about from the outside. >>>>> -greg >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:19 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. >>>>>> >>>>>> In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" >>>>>> which >>>>>> you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials >> from >>>>>> is >>>>>> called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. >> In >>>>>> that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to >> declare >>>>>> that "the activity is the context." >>>>>> >>>>>> So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to >>>>>> over >>>>>> and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use >> of >>>>>> the >>>>>> term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of >> this >>>>>> is >>>>>> presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. >>>>>> >>>>>> mike >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with >> Roland. >>>>>>> In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, >> and >>>>>>> intersubjectivity. >>>>>>> Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community >>>>>>> >>>>>> psychology >>>>>> >>>>>>> by its professional organization, >>>>>>> the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): >>>>>>> ?'to promote theory development and research that increases >>>>>>> our understanding of human behavior in context?' >>>>>>> (SCRA 2010 )." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the >> definition as >>>>>>> the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history >>>>>>> and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we >> noted >>>>>>> "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a >> shared >>>>>>> value, >>>>>>> agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will >>>>>>> >>>>>> always >>>>>> >>>>>>> be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, >> and >>>>>>> emotions. In >>>>>>> addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in >>>>>>> >>>>>> flux >>>>>> >>>>>>> and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change >> over >>>>>>> time (O?Donnell et al. >>>>>>> 1993, p. 507)." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cliff >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC >>>>>>> side >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of Roland and Cliff's article. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a >>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. >>>>>>>> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Intervention >>>>>> >>>>>>> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source >> of >>>>>>>> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> professionally. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified >>>>>>>> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. >>>> Professor Emeritus >>>> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division >> 27) >>>> >>>> University of Hawai?i >>>> Department of Psychology >>>> 2530 Dole Street >>>> Honolulu, HI 96822 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> >> > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Mar 23 20:55:00 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:55:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] The Tower of Babel Message-ID: Hi, I came across the story of the Tower of Babel in Technology and Culture: A Historical Romance by Barry Katz, and it seems to coincide somehow with recent discussions. (Though I shamelessly admit, I have not been keeping my thumb on the all of content of the discussion and so my context is of a shallow angle, think perhaps a letter slot). Regardless, I thought I would add this to the soup: "The biblical passage that best focuses the question of technology is the parable of The Tower of Babel, brilliantly compressed into the first nine lines of the eleventh chapter of Genesis: All the earth had the same language and the same words. And it came to pass, as they journeyed east,that they came upon a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there. They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them hard." Bricks served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar. And they said, "Come build us a city, and a tower with its top to the sky, to make a name for ourselves, else we shall be scattered all over the world." The Lord came down to look at the city, and the tower which they had built, and the Lord said, "If as one people with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing they propose to do will be out of their reach. "Let us then go down and confound their speech there, so that they shall not understand one another's speech." Thus the Lord scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. That is why it is called Babel, because the Lord confounded the speech of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth." ?p. 14-15 ?What I would like to attend to is the italicized text (which Katz had emphasized), namely: ? "...then nothing they propose to do will be out of their reach." Does it not mean that if we understood one another, together we could do anything? So much that we would be in company of the divine? And does it mean also that the thing we propose to do, which is speech induced, is something like an incantation? i.e. magic? (prefiguration?) And, and, and also, is not a brick like a word? and a book like a tower, that allows us to see out far distances? And does not misunderstanding between people cause separation and distance? A scattering across the earth (the creation of refugees in leaky boats over rough seas, no less). While the act of working to build something together brings us together in more than geographic ways? In this sense, what might be the text? and what the context? It seems they are both intertwined. And should I now find a rope to climb down (or climb up) this tower of words, my post? Kind regards, Annalisa From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Mar 23 21:01:08 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 04:01:08 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Tower of Babel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, but the formatting was lost when it was sent. Oh well! I have tried to fix it a little bit below. :) ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 9:55 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] The Tower of Babel Hi, I came across the story of the Tower of Babel in Technology and Culture: A Historical Romance by Barry Katz, and it seems to coincide somehow with recent discussions. (Though I shamelessly admit, I have not been keeping my thumb on the all of content of the discussion and so my context is of a shallow angle, think perhaps a letter slot). Regardless, I thought I would add this to the soup: "The biblical passage that best focuses the question of technology is the parable of The Tower of Babel, brilliantly compressed into the first nine lines of the eleventh chapter of Genesis: | All the earth had the same language and the same words. | And it came to pass, as they journeyed east,that they came upon a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there. | They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them hard." Bricks served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar. | And they said, "Come build us a city, and a tower with its top to the sky, to make a name for ourselves, else we shall be scattered all over the world." | The Lord came down to look at the city, and the tower which they had built, and the Lord said, "If as one people with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing they propose to do will be out of their reach. | "Let us then go down and confound their speech there, so that they shall not understand one another's speech." | Thus the Lord scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. | That is why it is called Babel, because the Lord confounded the speech of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth." (p. 14-15) What I would like to attend to is the italicized text (which Katz had emphasized), namely: "...then nothing they propose to do will be out of their reach." Does it not mean that if we understood one another, together we could do anything? So much that we would be in company of the divine? And does it mean also that the thing we propose to do, which is speech induced, is something like an incantation? i.e. magic? (prefiguration?) And, and, and also, is not a brick like a word? and a book like a tower, that allows us to see out far distances? And does not misunderstanding between people cause separation and distance? A scattering across the earth (the creation of refugees in leaky boats over rough seas, no less). While the act of working to build something together brings us together in more than geographic ways? In this sense, what might be the text? and what the context? It seems they are both intertwined. And should I now find a rope to climb down (or climb up) this tower of words, my post? Kind regards, Annalisa From bella.kotik@gmail.com Thu Mar 24 00:07:25 2016 From: bella.kotik@gmail.com (Bella Kotik-Friedgut) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:07:25 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] (no subject) Message-ID: This is my presentation of the book http://media.dyellin.ac.il/v/4070 at D.Yellin college in Jerusalem and Elite Olshtain speaking http://media.dyellin.ac.il/v/4068 [image: Inline image 1] Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: book.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 185634 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160324/03d9293b/attachment.jpg From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Mar 25 07:40:28 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 07:40:28 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <631D09C2-57A2-4A59-92A4-4097A3BD22CA@ucla.edu> Message-ID: <56f54e10.924a620a.9e544.ffff8778@mx.google.com> Ron, Thank you for situating where and when the concept or terminology ?activity setting? came into being. You mention; ?Activity setting? is the terminology Tom Weisner and I used in a AAA > paper (attached) ?constructed? by us to reflect the impact on our thinking > of the Whitings Psychocultural Theory and Activity Theory/Vygotsky. Your reasons for this specific selection of a hybrid term was, ? We were trying at the time to > see a convergence in thinking in different realms of psychology and > anthropology. The Psychocultural folks used ?settings? which seemed to map > onto ?activity? Therefore the ?con/text? of this months article for discussion can be understood as a mediated outgrowth of the way [the reasons presented] this specific terminology was first invented and then employed by you and Tom for the purposes of *con/vergence? amidst ?di/vergence?. To return to a question Mike asked when refeeing to Engestrom who said ?Activity IS context?. This is an assertion that is determinate and committed and therefore existential. This is an expression not of semblance [or re/semblance] but is a statement of identity. It is not a con/vergence amidst difference. Mike?s question refers to a *gap* that may open within the terminology of ?activity? and ?context?. This may lead [or carry on as a travelling metaphor] towards exploring the contrasts between activity settings with behaviour settings and praxis settings that may ?institute? differing contexts. I would like to introduce a new term into our conversation at this moment. The term is *entelechy*. DEFINITION: Potential for realization A realization or actuality rather than a potentiality. Intrinsic energy Equivalent to [en?1? -en?2?] plus [goal or tel(os)] plus [to have or ech/ein] *that* which makes actual *what is* only potential The distinction between the potential and the actual The form which makes something what it is The stuff of matter is not yet real something.It needs necessarily *certain* form or function to complete Matter and form are never separated, they can only be distinguished or selected Example: inorganic substances can be ?selected? from a *certain* form or function or *inner activity* [without which] this inorganic matter would not be a living form or living activity. This living form is what Aristotle called the *first* entelechy of the living organism. The first potential of realization. Some versions of speculation speculate that entelechy may become conscious of *itself* meaning its potential realized. As I listen to our conversation exploring the event of the terminology of *activity setting* coming into form/function and this form/concept travelling towards this months article for discussion I wonder ihow or if entelechy is implicated differently within the concept ?context? in contrast to ?activity? Or are ?activity? and ?context? identical forms/functions [a *certain* determinate relation.] Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mike cole Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 6:20 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology It is great to see your voice, Ron, after such a long absence! Perfect timing for intervening to bring your first person perspective to the days of the kamehameha project, too. A very neat summary of reasons for bringing Vygotsky and activity into the discussion. The summary make a point that has been the subject of a lot of discussion recently -- how to ensure that agency for change in such projects comes from what you call the ecocultural niche. How, in intervention research, can one, does one, position oneself as the instrument of the community in its efforts to develop, however community is instantiated in the research. Is there a recent historical account of that project? Something along the lines of the paper that Cliff posted about Seymous Sarason's activity setting, an old building on the edge of a freeway extension, in New Haven? mike On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Ronald Gallimore wrote: > Mike? > > ?Activity setting? is the terminology Tom Weisner and I used in a AAA > paper (attached) ?constructed? by us to reflect the impact on our thinking > of the Whitings Psychocultural Theory and Activity Theory/Vygotsky. Roland > and I used it in in Rousing Minds to Life as you and many others were introducing to American > psychology. > > From the Conclusions of Weisner & Gallimore (1985): > > "The convergence of these two theories suggests some interesting > hypotheses: First, for cultural change to have effects on individuals, > ecocultural forces must be instantiated into activity settings which are a > part of the everyday life of the individual. Changes which never influence > goals, motives, personnel, tasks, and task requirements will have little > effect on individual cognition, emotion and behavior. This is as true of > the home and community setting, as it is for the classroom: efforts to > "make culture relevant for minority education" which do not also have the > effect of reshaping relevant features of classroom activity settings are > unlikely to produce strong effects on learning. > > A second hypothesis relates specifically to children and to efforts to > affect child development through parent training. Many programs rely on > training of parents to achieve socially desirable goals. The convergence of > activity and ecocultural theory suggests that none of these will have > lasting effects unless they create activities which are supported by the > local ecocultural niche. > > A related version of the same hypothesis is a requirement that any effort > to train parents must require evidence that such training is not only > supported by the niche, but is adopted by other parents and diffused > through the niche as a valued innovation by kinsmen and other culture > members. > > Uniting of activity and ecocultural theory provides an attractive > alternative to explanations using packed, global terms, such as > differential levels of "stimulation" for children, or packaged family-level > measures such as socioeconomic status rankings. Used in this way > stimulation has roughly the same explanatory properties as bad night air. > Something about better educated mothers makes them more stimulating--but > what? What are the mediating mechanisms? The combination of the two > theories provides a basis for specifying at the level of cultural > activities what it is that accounts for differential behavior, and at the > same time provides a principled basis for identifying the ecocultural > context which gives rise to the activities. What matters is the ecocultural > factors that in turn influence the who, why, what and how of the activities > in which children spend their time.? > > ron > > > > > On Mar 23, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > > Cliff, thanks for this. > > Michael, yes, I'm entirely in agreement about the importance of the > > intransigence of a meaning of a concept for the individual - it has to be > > something outside of us in order to be of value to us, i.e. to enable > > newness, growth, development. > > > > Where I get tripped up is: does meaning have to be intransigent for a > given > > community? I suppose the answer is: yes, if the point is the growth of > that > > community. But maybe not if the point is the growth of the individuals in > > that community (for whom the meaning may indeed be intransigent). > > > > Maybe. > > -greg > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Cliff O'Donnell > wrote: > > > >> Greg, for an overview of the Yale Psycho-Educational Clinic, see: > >> > >> Goldenburg, I. and Levine, M. (1969), The development and evolution of > the > >> YALE PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL CLINIC. Applied Psychology: An International > >> Review, 18, 101?110. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1969.tb00671.x > >> > >> Cliff > >> > >> > >> On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:22 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > >> > >> Mike, > >>> Just wondering if you had any observations to share about the Yale > >>> Psycho-Educational Clinic? > >>> (or maybe you had left Yale by then?). > >>> Seemed like an interesting attempt to create a setting that would be > neat > >>> to hear more about from the outside. > >>> -greg > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:19 PM, mike cole wrote: > >>> > >>> Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. > >>>> > >>>> In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" > >>>> which > >>>> you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials > from > >>>> is > >>>> called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. > In > >>>> that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to > declare > >>>> that "the activity is the context." > >>>> > >>>> So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to > >>>> over > >>>> and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use > of > >>>> the > >>>> term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of > this > >>>> is > >>>> presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. > >>>> > >>>> Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. > >>>> > >>>> mike > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with > Roland. > >>>>> In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, > and > >>>>> intersubjectivity. > >>>>> Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community > >>>>> > >>>> psychology > >>>> > >>>>> by its professional organization, > >>>>> the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): > >>>>> ?'to promote theory development and research that increases > >>>>> our understanding of human behavior in context?' > >>>>> (SCRA 2010 )." > >>>>> > >>>>> After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the > definition as > >>>>> the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history > >>>>> and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we > noted > >>>>> "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a > shared > >>>>> value, > >>>>> agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will > >>>>> > >>>> always > >>>> > >>>>> be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, > and > >>>>> emotions. In > >>>>> addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in > >>>>> > >>>> flux > >>>> > >>>>> and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change > over > >>>>> time (O?Donnell et al. > >>>>> 1993, p. 507)." > >>>>> > >>>>> Cliff > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC > >>>>> side > >>>>> > >>>>>> of Roland and Cliff's article. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a > >>>>>> while > >>>>>> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. > >>>>>> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and > >>>>>> > >>>>> Intervention > >>>> > >>>>> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source > of > >>>>>> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do > >>>>>> > >>>>> professionally. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified > >>>>>> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> mike > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > >> Professor Emeritus > >> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division > 27) > >> > >> University of Hawai?i > >> Department of Psychology > >> 2530 Dole Street > >> Honolulu, HI 96822 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ablunden@mira.net Fri Mar 25 08:01:35 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:01:35 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology In-Reply-To: <56f54e10.924a620a.9e544.ffff8778@mx.google.com> References: <631D09C2-57A2-4A59-92A4-4097A3BD22CA@ucla.edu> <56f54e10.924a620a.9e544.ffff8778@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <56F552CF.5030707@mira.net> What Engestrom is doing by saying "the activity is the context" is further specifying "context" according to how context is grasped in CHAT. I.e., we do not simply ask for a list of everything around, from economic conditions to the weather, we ask "what is going on here?" By its nature this indicates the outcome of an enquiry into the environment, rather than the environment as such. A person's action make sense in the context of the activity of which it was a part. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 26/03/2016 1:40 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > Ron, > Thank you for situating where and when the concept or terminology ?activity setting? came into being. You mention; > > ?Activity setting? is the terminology Tom Weisner and I used in a AAA >> paper (attached) ?constructed? by us to reflect the impact on our thinking >> of the Whitings Psychocultural Theory and Activity Theory/Vygotsky. > Your reasons for this specific selection of a hybrid term was, > > ? We were trying at the time to >> see a convergence in thinking in different realms of psychology and >> anthropology. The Psychocultural folks used ?settings? which seemed to map >> onto ?activity? > Therefore the ?con/text? of this months article for discussion can be understood as a mediated outgrowth of the way [the reasons presented] this specific terminology was first invented and then employed by you and Tom for the purposes of *con/vergence? amidst ?di/vergence?. > > To return to a question Mike asked when refeeing to Engestrom who said ?Activity IS context?. > > This is an assertion that is determinate and committed and therefore existential. This is an expression not of semblance [or re/semblance] but is a statement of identity. It is not a con/vergence amidst difference. > > Mike?s question refers to a *gap* that may open within the terminology of ?activity? and ?context?. > This may lead [or carry on as a travelling metaphor] towards exploring the contrasts between activity settings with behaviour settings and praxis settings that may ?institute? differing contexts. > > > I would like to introduce a new term into our conversation at this moment. The term is *entelechy*. > DEFINITION: > Potential for realization > A realization or actuality rather than a potentiality. > Intrinsic energy > Equivalent to [en?1? -en?2?] plus [goal or tel(os)] plus [to have or ech/ein] > *that* which makes actual *what is* only potential > The distinction between the potential and the actual > The form which makes something what it is > The stuff of matter is not yet real something.It needs necessarily *certain* form or function to complete > Matter and form are never separated, they can only be distinguished or selected > Example: inorganic substances can be ?selected? from a *certain* form or function or *inner activity* [without which] this inorganic matter would not be a living form or living activity. This living form is what Aristotle called the *first* entelechy of the living organism. The first potential of realization. > Some versions of speculation speculate that entelechy may become conscious of *itself* meaning its potential realized. > > As I listen to our conversation exploring the event of the terminology of *activity setting* coming into form/function and this form/concept travelling towards this months article for discussion I wonder ihow or if entelechy is implicated differently within the concept ?context? in contrast to ?activity? > Or are ?activity? and ?context? identical forms/functions [a *certain* determinate relation.] > > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: mike cole > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 6:20 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Community Psychology > > It is great to see your voice, Ron, after such a long absence! > > Perfect timing for intervening to bring your first person perspective to > the days of the kamehameha project, too. > > A very neat summary of reasons for bringing Vygotsky and activity into the > discussion. The summary make a point that has been the subject of a lot of > discussion recently -- how to ensure that agency for change in such > projects comes from what you call the ecocultural niche. > > How, in intervention research, can one, does one, position oneself as the > instrument of the community in its efforts to develop, however community is > instantiated in the research. > > Is there a recent historical account of that project? Something along the > lines of the paper that Cliff posted about Seymous Sarason's activity > setting, an old building > on the edge of a freeway extension, in New Haven? > > mike > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Ronald Gallimore wrote: > >> Mike? >> >> ?Activity setting? is the terminology Tom Weisner and I used in a AAA >> paper (attached) ?constructed? by us to reflect the impact on our thinking >> of the Whitings Psychocultural Theory and Activity Theory/Vygotsky. Roland >> and I used it in in Rousing Minds to Life > as you and many others were introducing to American >> psychology. >> >> From the Conclusions of Weisner & Gallimore (1985): >> >> "The convergence of these two theories suggests some interesting >> hypotheses: First, for cultural change to have effects on individuals, >> ecocultural forces must be instantiated into activity settings which are a >> part of the everyday life of the individual. Changes which never influence >> goals, motives, personnel, tasks, and task requirements will have little >> effect on individual cognition, emotion and behavior. This is as true of >> the home and community setting, as it is for the classroom: efforts to >> "make culture relevant for minority education" which do not also have the >> effect of reshaping relevant features of classroom activity settings are >> unlikely to produce strong effects on learning. >> >> A second hypothesis relates specifically to children and to efforts to >> affect child development through parent training. Many programs rely on >> training of parents to achieve socially desirable goals. The convergence of >> activity and ecocultural theory suggests that none of these will have >> lasting effects unless they create activities which are supported by the >> local ecocultural niche. >> >> A related version of the same hypothesis is a requirement that any effort >> to train parents must require evidence that such training is not only >> supported by the niche, but is adopted by other parents and diffused >> through the niche as a valued innovation by kinsmen and other culture >> members. >> >> Uniting of activity and ecocultural theory provides an attractive >> alternative to explanations using packed, global terms, such as >> differential levels of "stimulation" for children, or packaged family-level >> measures such as socioeconomic status rankings. Used in this way >> stimulation has roughly the same explanatory properties as bad night air. >> Something about better educated mothers makes them more stimulating--but >> what? What are the mediating mechanisms? The combination of the two >> theories provides a basis for specifying at the level of cultural >> activities what it is that accounts for differential behavior, and at the >> same time provides a principled basis for identifying the ecocultural >> context which gives rise to the activities. What matters is the ecocultural >> factors that in turn influence the who, why, what and how of the activities >> in which children spend their time.? >> >> ron >> >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Greg Thompson >> wrote: >>> Cliff, thanks for this. >>> Michael, yes, I'm entirely in agreement about the importance of the >>> intransigence of a meaning of a concept for the individual - it has to be >>> something outside of us in order to be of value to us, i.e. to enable >>> newness, growth, development. >>> >>> Where I get tripped up is: does meaning have to be intransigent for a >> given >>> community? I suppose the answer is: yes, if the point is the growth of >> that >>> community. But maybe not if the point is the growth of the individuals in >>> that community (for whom the meaning may indeed be intransigent). >>> >>> Maybe. >>> -greg >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Cliff O'Donnell >> wrote: >>>> Greg, for an overview of the Yale Psycho-Educational Clinic, see: >>>> >>>> Goldenburg, I. and Levine, M. (1969), The development and evolution of >> the >>>> YALE PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL CLINIC. Applied Psychology: An International >>>> Review, 18, 101?110. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1969.tb00671.x >>>> >>>> Cliff >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:22 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>> >>>> Mike, >>>>> Just wondering if you had any observations to share about the Yale >>>>> Psycho-Educational Clinic? >>>>> (or maybe you had left Yale by then?). >>>>> Seemed like an interesting attempt to create a setting that would be >> neat >>>>> to hear more about from the outside. >>>>> -greg >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:19 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Trying to follow through on each of the concepts, Cliff. >>>>>> In this connection, I notice that you use the term "activity setting" >>>>>> which >>>>>> you attribute to Vygotsky. The book I took the McDermott materials >> from >>>>>> is >>>>>> called "Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. >> In >>>>>> that book, in the discussions among authors, Engestrom is led to >> declare >>>>>> that "the activity is the context." >>>>>> >>>>>> So my mind is spinning around what an activity setting might refer to >>>>>> over >>>>>> and above "activity." And then there is the question of how your use >> of >>>>>> the >>>>>> term context and the word setting relate to each other. And all of >> this >>>>>> is >>>>>> presumably closely linked to the discussion on text/context. >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting to revisit old topics from new perspectives. >>>>>> >>>>>> mike >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Cliff O'Donnell >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Mike. Attached is the manuscript for my 2012 article with >> Roland. >>>>>>> In it we discuss how we are using the concepts of context, culture, >> and >>>>>>> intersubjectivity. >>>>>>> Note that context is expressed in one of the goals of community >>>>>>> >>>>>> psychology >>>>>> >>>>>>> by its professional organization, >>>>>>> the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA): >>>>>>> ?'to promote theory development and research that increases >>>>>>> our understanding of human behavior in context?' >>>>>>> (SCRA 2010 )." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After discussing the many meanings of culture, we used the >> definition as >>>>>>> the "shared meanings of people, developed through their history >>>>>>> and activities." Also in our discussion of intersubjectivity, we >> noted >>>>>>> "intersubjectivity does not imply uniformity. Diversity may be a >> shared >>>>>>> value, >>>>>>> agreement about process may allow frequent conflict, and there will >>>>>>> >>>>>> always >>>>>> >>>>>>> be differences among people in their skills, thoughts, experience, >> and >>>>>>> emotions. In >>>>>>> addition, activity settings are dynamic; their characteristics are in >>>>>>> >>>>>> flux >>>>>> >>>>>>> and, therefore, the intersubjectivity of their participants change >> over >>>>>>> time (O?Donnell et al. >>>>>>> 1993, p. 507)." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cliff >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2016, at 8:26 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo's comments sent me looking for background material on the CC >>>>>>> side >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of Roland and Cliff's article. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is an article by Seymour as part of a special issue of MCA a >>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>> ago. It seems not to have attraced the notice it deserves.Attached. >>>>>>>> Also attached is a recent summary of Community Psychology and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Intervention >>>>>>> research which seemed like promising background and perhaps a source >> of >>>>>>>> additional ideas, since intervention is what so many us do >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> professionally. >>>>>>>> Myself, I have been thinking about why Roland and Cliff identified >>>>>>>> secondary intersubjectivity as a key common principle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. >>>> Professor Emeritus >>>> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division >> 27) >>>> University of Hawai?i >>>> Department of Psychology >>>> 2530 Dole Street >>>> Honolulu, HI 96822 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Mar 26 20:43:33 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 20:43:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Imagination;semiotic mediation Message-ID: I invite comment on the process of interpreting images using the most recent New Yorker cover as an example. They often strike me as especially rich condensed representations. They are one of the means I use to think about Eisenshtein, who David has brought into recent discussions to useful effect. How do you interpret the raised hand and inscriptions to be found at newyorker.com if you scroll down the page. The leftmost image with a hand. How do you interpret it from first impression to reflective summary/label? If this proves interesting the cover with the stop sign would be a second choice. Mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Mar 26 21:06:59 2016 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 05:06:59 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-2016-03-28 A comic version of the (pseudo-science) phrenology sculpture with short fingers. It's a vertically raised, rather than open-forward raised, left hand, suggesting a posture of swearing allegiance. Sickly colours. Huw On 27 March 2016 at 04:43, mike cole wrote: > I invite comment on the process of interpreting images using the most > recent New Yorker cover as an example. They often strike me as especially > rich condensed representations. > They are one of the means I use to think about Eisenshtein, who David has > brought into recent discussions to useful effect. > > How do you interpret the raised hand and inscriptions to be found at > newyorker.com if you scroll down the page. The leftmost image with a hand. > How do you interpret it from first impression to reflective summary/label? > > If this proves interesting the cover with the stop sign would be a second > choice. > > Mike > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From ablunden@mira.net Sat Mar 26 21:53:59 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 15:53:59 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56F76767.4020300@mira.net> I don't see an allusion to phrenology, Huw. It's direct allusion to palmistry surely, and the text goes on to explain. a ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 27/03/2016 3:06 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-2016-03-28 > > A comic version of the (pseudo-science) phrenology sculpture with short > fingers. > > It's a vertically raised, rather than open-forward raised, left hand, > suggesting a posture of swearing allegiance. Sickly colours. > > Huw > > > > On 27 March 2016 at 04:43, mike cole wrote: > >> I invite comment on the process of interpreting images using the most >> recent New Yorker cover as an example. They often strike me as especially >> rich condensed representations. >> They are one of the means I use to think about Eisenshtein, who David has >> brought into recent discussions to useful effect. >> >> How do you interpret the raised hand and inscriptions to be found at >> newyorker.com if you scroll down the page. The leftmost image with a hand. >> How do you interpret it from first impression to reflective summary/label? >> >> If this proves interesting the cover with the stop sign would be a second >> choice. >> >> Mike >> >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object >> that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Mar 26 22:11:23 2016 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 06:11:23 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: <56F76767.4020300@mira.net> References: <56F76767.4020300@mira.net> Message-ID: Sure, but that was my subjective impression :) On 27 March 2016 at 05:53, Andy Blunden wrote: > I don't see an allusion to phrenology, Huw. It's direct allusion to > palmistry surely, and the text goes on to explain. > a > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 27/03/2016 3:06 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-2016-03-28 >> >> A comic version of the (pseudo-science) phrenology sculpture with short >> fingers. >> >> It's a vertically raised, rather than open-forward raised, left hand, >> suggesting a posture of swearing allegiance. Sickly colours. >> >> Huw >> >> >> >> On 27 March 2016 at 04:43, mike cole wrote: >> >> I invite comment on the process of interpreting images using the most >>> recent New Yorker cover as an example. They often strike me as especially >>> rich condensed representations. >>> They are one of the means I use to think about Eisenshtein, who David has >>> brought into recent discussions to useful effect. >>> >>> How do you interpret the raised hand and inscriptions to be found at >>> newyorker.com if you scroll down the page. The leftmost image with a >>> hand. >>> How do you interpret it from first impression to reflective >>> summary/label? >>> >>> If this proves interesting the cover with the stop sign would be a second >>> choice. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>> object >>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >>> > From annalisa@unm.edu Sat Mar 26 22:16:04 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 05:16:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Huw. Though, I would say not phrenology, I would say eugenics, which has to do with purity. Hence the Very big heart and the long life line, incredible intellect, etc. All the things one could possibly want. There is also the irony of telling the future through saying the unbelievable, which many take palmistry to be, usually foretold by a gypsy. It's interesting about the short fingers. Those features of the fingers are described with vertical text, and therefore hard to read, you have to look closely. But that text denies. And the length of fingers apparently mean something for being short appendages. I'd say it out trumps, as in out of the closet, in the most clever and ironic way possible. We should salute that. I think that this is an image that will become more clear in time. What will be interesting is looking back from the future at this image, as we will know much much more. Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 9:43 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Imagination;semiotic mediation I invite comment on the process of interpreting images using the most recent New Yorker cover as an example. They often strike me as especially rich condensed representations. They are one of the means I use to think about Eisenshtein, who David has brought into recent discussions to useful effect. How do you interpret the raised hand and inscriptions to be found at newyorker.com if you scroll down the page. The leftmost image with a hand. How do you interpret it from first impression to reflective summary/label? If this proves interesting the cover with the stop sign would be a second choice. Mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Mar 26 22:16:10 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 16:16:10 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What I find interesting is how the image is able to capture the voice. How does that work? I am not normally synaesthesic: I tend to work with one sensory channel at a time. But when I look at this magazine cover, I can hear the exact cadences, the slurred consonants, the throttled vowels, and above all the plunging intonation of the man. Here's what I think. Semiotic mediation is, among other things, a form of artificially created synaesthesia. If you don't know anything about Italian food, and you see a pack of uncooked pasta in a supermarket, you might think it looks like a sheaf of wheat or a pack of breadsticks. If you do know, then you not only think of fettucine cooked al dente in a light cream sauce (which looks nothing like a sheaf of wheat or a pack of breadsticks) you can easily persuade yourself that you can smell the chopped garlic and freshly ground pepper and taste the tang of vongole. Eisenstein's polemic with Vertov is in its essence about the higher and lower psychological functions. Vertov wants us to react viscerally to images, and Eisenstein was persuaded through the failure of some of his more visceral images in "Strike" that each image must evoke a verbal meaning and not a visceral one. (Eisenstein tried to do a montage of Cossacks firing on workers and an ox in a slaughterhouse, and the actual workers who attended the premiere, some of whom were second generation or even first generation farmers, could not figure out why people were taking time off to prepare a banquet in the middle of a massacre.) So Eisenstein's attempt to create a "fourth dimension" and even a "fifth dimension" using montage is an attempt to bridge the perceived gap between physical objects and social objects. It is interesting that where Vygotsky does discuss the problem of how a three year old learns to see social objects, the editors of the Russian Collected Works, obviously not very well versed in Marxism, attribute it to the German Ideology attack on Feuerbach, probably one of the few Marx texts they actually HAVE read. The real source is this from the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844: "In the same way, the senses and enjoyment of other men have become my own appropriation. Besides these direct organs, therefore, social organs develop in the form of society; thus, for instance, activity in direct association with others, etc., has become an organ for expressing my own life, and a mode of appropriating human life. It is obvious that the human eye enjoys things in a way different from the crude, non-human eye; the human ear different from the crude ear, etc. We have seen that man does not lose himself in his object only when the object becomes for him a human object or objective man. This is possible only when the object becomes for him a social object, he himself for himself a social being, just as society becomes a being for him in this object." When we read this alongside Vygotsky's writing on the three year old, we see the effect of the recently published manuscript on Vygotsky. When we read Eisenstein, though, we may be constantly reminded how vocal his channel to Vygotsky was; like my connection to Donald Trump, it is not the result of reading his works. Eisenstein is really working with Vygotsky's early work, "The Psychology of Art", a heavily annotated typescript of which was found in Eisenstein's library when he died. So when Eisenstein insists on the higher psychological functions and holds up verbal meaning and semiotic mediation as their exemplar, we are not seeing the result of reading Vygotsky's text; we are probably hearing the result of his voice. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:43 PM, mike cole wrote: > I invite comment on the process of interpreting images using the most > recent New Yorker cover as an example. They often strike me as especially > rich condensed representations. > They are one of the means I use to think about Eisenshtein, who David has > brought into recent discussions to useful effect. > > How do you interpret the raised hand and inscriptions to be found at > newyorker.com if you scroll down the page. The leftmost image with a hand. > How do you interpret it from first impression to reflective summary/label? > > If this proves interesting the cover with the stop sign would be a second > choice. > > Mike > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From annalisa@unm.edu Sat Mar 26 22:36:29 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 05:36:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: BTW: Eugenics has the Greek etymology of eu- meaning "good" or "well," and genos, meaning "race," "stock," "kin," that is... "well-born". This may relate to the short fingers, which also makes a reference to mating, and also possibly, just possibly sterilization. The image becomes cleverer every second! :) Kind regards, Annalisa From glassman.13@osu.edu Sun Mar 27 05:18:03 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:18:03 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C6D5E9@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> This is really interesting on a number of levels - but isn't the picture mediated by our experience, or perhaps our activity system. I find it interesting that Andy is from Australia and he suggests palmistry. And Huw is from England (is this right Hus) and he suggests eugenics, however in he United States the Trump campaign has been a terrifying phenomenon. His most virulent weapon has been Twitter. All of the string of words are similar to Twitter posts. Twitter is an interesting tool. The original idea was based on bicycle messaging and knowing where any messenger is in the grid at any time. Its greatest power is in creating shifts in public thinking on a very, very general way. Trump is basically a master of this through Tweeting and sub-tweeting. He uses a volunteer army of Twitter users to control the discourse at any particular time he wants. But it is more than that. Trump I think is holding up his left hand. One of the few times somebody holds up a hand in that way is to take an other - the oath of the presidency included - except it is the left hand. The half-truths he uses on Twitter to reach the presidency will lead to a presidency based on deception. It makes me think how much the moment impact the experience of the viewer, on multiple levels, which is why I am thinking activity system, impacts where our mind goes on seeing a picture. It also made me think of Chaplin, the American/English version of Eisenstein I think. There are so many of his scenes that are so powerful but I think of Modern Times when he gets caught in the machine. I think it is just an interesting commentary on industrialization. But I wonder the person caught in the throes of industrialization of the time might have been thinking. And I also wonder what the millennial who has only known the information age might be thinking. It's different for each I think because we see it differently. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 1:36 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation BTW: Eugenics has the Greek etymology of eu- meaning "good" or "well," and genos, meaning "race," "stock," "kin," that is... "well-born". This may relate to the short fingers, which also makes a reference to mating, and also possibly, just possibly sterilization. The image becomes cleverer every second! :) Kind regards, Annalisa From Peg.Griffin@att.net Sun Mar 27 08:03:36 2016 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 11:03:36 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001901d18839$d6f48ec0$84ddac40$@att.net> And another kind of condensation (or maybe really two kinds in one: a headline about twitter: "Microsoft Created a Twitter Bot to Learn From Users. It Quickly Became a Racist Jerk." We have met the enemy and they are us. Depressing Easter Sunday thought. Something has risen and we don't like it! Peg -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 11:44 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Imagination;semiotic mediation I invite comment on the process of interpreting images using the most recent New Yorker cover as an example. They often strike me as especially rich condensed representations. They are one of the means I use to think about Eisenshtein, who David has brought into recent discussions to useful effect. How do you interpret the raised hand and inscriptions to be found at newyorker.com if you scroll down the page. The leftmost image with a hand. How do you interpret it from first impression to reflective summary/label? If this proves interesting the cover with the stop sign would be a second choice. Mike -- 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 Sun Mar 27 08:39:50 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:39:50 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Should we say anything about the fact that nobody has mentioned the "hand envy" moment of one of the recent Republican debates (the one where politics was raised to new lows)? http://www.businessinsider.com/new-yorker-cover-about-trumps-hand-size-2016-3 (you should really check out the original debate - really amazing stuff) Nor has anyone said anything about the hailing hand gesture done at some Trump rallies (note: this is a Trump-supporting page, but no, I'm not a Trump supporter, it had the least ads of any of the descriptions I could find): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/08/trump_controvery_over_trump_pledge_salute.html Did everyone just assume that this is common knowledge? Or did people not know about these hand-y origins? And if you didn't know about this, does knowing this deepen the meaning of the image? and a recent Daily show segment where Black Trump responds to the New Yorker cover: http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-daily-shows-black-trump-reenacts-the-donalds-crazy-rant-about-his-hands/ -greg On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > BTW: > > Eugenics has the Greek etymology of eu- meaning "good" or "well," and > genos, meaning "race," "stock," "kin," that is... "well-born". > > This may relate to the short fingers, which also makes a reference to > mating, and also possibly, just possibly sterilization. > > The image becomes cleverer every second! > > :) > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > -- 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 ematusov@udel.edu Sun Mar 27 10:23:36 2016 From: ematusov@udel.edu (Eugene Matusov) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 13:23:36 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Advice wanted: Transcription and translation services Message-ID: <696995977468b036fabc2f4bf3dfc87f@mail.gmail.com> Dear colleagues? We need your advice. Some of you may already know that Eugene Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane, and Mikhail Gradovski are working on the book, tentatively titled ?Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research: Bakhtin by and for Educators? to be published by Palgrave. For this purpose, we interviewed many seasoned self-proclaimed Bakhtinian educators. Can you, please, recommend us to find very good but not very expensive companies that will: 1) Transcribe interview from audio files to text; 2) Translate and transcribe some interviews from Russian to English; 3) Edit the final English text of the book? Have you had any experiences with similar work done by the recommended companies ? if so, what is your satisfaction? Any recommendations how we can find such companies/agencies? We would highly appreciate your advice! Thanks, Eugene, Ana, and Mikhail ---------------------------- Eugene Matusov, PhD Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal Professor of Education School of Education 16 W Main st University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716, USA Publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm DiaPed: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu DPJ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DPJ.two/ ---------------------------- From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Mar 27 13:41:16 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 07:41:16 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greg: We are taught to think that Trump is boorish and uncultured and from the wrong side of the Hudson because of his hair-trigger reactions. How is it possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that this very teaching reliably informs us that the whole playground game started with a taunt from Senator Rubio? (It was, actually, a very well aimed taunt, designed to bring out the ease with which this potential president can be jerked around, one that suggests strategic knowledge of Trump's greatest weaknesses; it was not, as Rubio himself claimed, something he just stumbled into by accident in the desperate flailing of his dying campaign). We are taught to think that this is all highly regrettable. How is it possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that the very people teaching this are the ones who created this carnival atmosphere where serious discussions are impossible--mostly these hard, unfunny 24-7 comedy shows which are always so hard up for their hard, unfunny material, relying, again and again, on the puerile devices of profanity and industrial quantities of canned laughter? How not to notice that people who most "shocked, shocked!" are precisely the people who have littered politics with what are essentially unserious, unsocial, non-political lifestyle issues? (Not just the comedy shows. which have been the death of comedy as well as the death of politics, but the Evangelical Christians, and above all the 24-7 news people who have to talk about politics all day and all night without ever really talking class or social issues of any kind.) Here's what I notice. We notice Trump's boorishness and not Rubio's just because Trump is bigger than Rubio (I am not referring to their male endowments). We notice vulgarity in others but not in ourselves because when I do it on national television and you laugh at it in the privacy of your own home, it's just not so "in your face" for either of us. I notice that white working people have been successfully taught to ask that if Trump's so dumb, how come he's rich? I notice that the simple job of the media is to demonstrate that although he is rich, he is actually rather insecure, thin-skinned, infantile, and his chain is easily jerked. This shouldn't be that difficult, and it's only mildly subversive of class politics in the USA, since there is only the slightest suggestion that some people who are rich are actually not particularly mature, trustworthy, or deserving of life-and-death powers over you and your children. But then in order to do this very simple task, the media now argue that although he's rich, and although he's from the East Coast, he's from the wrong side of the river, and his playground demeanour shows it. In other words, although he's rich, he's really poor. No wonder Trump is so popular! David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Should we say anything about the fact that nobody has mentioned the "hand > envy" moment of one of the recent Republican debates (the one where > politics was raised to new lows)? > > http://www.businessinsider.com/new-yorker-cover-about-trumps-hand-size-2016-3 > (you should really check out the original debate - really amazing stuff) > > Nor has anyone said anything about the hailing hand gesture done at some > Trump rallies (note: this is a Trump-supporting page, but no, I'm not a > Trump supporter, it had the least ads of any of the descriptions I could > find): > > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/08/trump_controvery_over_trump_pledge_salute.html > > Did everyone just assume that this is common knowledge? Or did people not > know about these hand-y origins? > And if you didn't know about this, does knowing this deepen the meaning of > the image? > > and a recent Daily show segment where Black Trump responds to the New > Yorker cover: > > http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-daily-shows-black-trump-reenacts-the-donalds-crazy-rant-about-his-hands/ > > -greg > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > wrote: > > > > > BTW: > > > > Eugenics has the Greek etymology of eu- meaning "good" or "well," and > > genos, meaning "race," "stock," "kin," that is... "well-born". > > > > This may relate to the short fingers, which also makes a reference to > > mating, and also possibly, just possibly sterilization. > > > > The image becomes cleverer every second! > > > > :) > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Annalisa > > > > > > -- > 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 huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sun Mar 27 14:41:47 2016 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 22:41:47 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the hopeful assumption that any front cover print-worthy image of the New Yorker has something of more aesthetic worth than were I left off, the image is also suggestive, to me, of a cartographic image of the united states, and perhaps also its division up into areas to be butchered. http://www.mapsofworld.com/physical-map/maps/usa-physical.jpg http://www.countryfarm-lifestyles.com/images/cuts-of-meat-pork.png Still I am not really sure this achieves an aesthetic transmutation of the "base" and puerile references in the original image into anything other than a more sober image. Perhaps there's something too about manipulation and the U.S. as this hand-leviathon: http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/01/20/fear-and-leviathan. The main principle driving the trump campaign seems to be "market share" of media coverage (and consciousness) and perhaps something about "leading" the narrative into different topics -- seemingly confusing willingness to comment on anything with openness. Huw On 27 March 2016 at 16:39, Greg Thompson wrote: > Should we say anything about the fact that nobody has mentioned the "hand > envy" moment of one of the recent Republican debates (the one where > politics was raised to new lows)? > > http://www.businessinsider.com/new-yorker-cover-about-trumps-hand-size-2016-3 > (you should really check out the original debate - really amazing stuff) > > Nor has anyone said anything about the hailing hand gesture done at some > Trump rallies (note: this is a Trump-supporting page, but no, I'm not a > Trump supporter, it had the least ads of any of the descriptions I could > find): > > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/08/trump_controvery_over_trump_pledge_salute.html > > Did everyone just assume that this is common knowledge? Or did people not > know about these hand-y origins? > And if you didn't know about this, does knowing this deepen the meaning of > the image? > > and a recent Daily show segment where Black Trump responds to the New > Yorker cover: > > http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-daily-shows-black-trump-reenacts-the-donalds-crazy-rant-about-his-hands/ > > -greg > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > wrote: > > > > > BTW: > > > > Eugenics has the Greek etymology of eu- meaning "good" or "well," and > > genos, meaning "race," "stock," "kin," that is... "well-born". > > > > This may relate to the short fingers, which also makes a reference to > > mating, and also possibly, just possibly sterilization. > > > > The image becomes cleverer every second! > > > > :) > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Annalisa > > > > > > -- > 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 Sun Mar 27 16:06:58 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (greg.a.thompson@gmail.com) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 17:06:58 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471491D9-2E8F-4729-894C-C0F92134A446@gmail.com> David, Yes, the effect of the message (and the implicit message of Trumps campaign) Is "rich outside, poor inside". But I think it was Spy magazine that long ago labeled Trump a "short-fingered vulgarian". Here is a recent reprise by the author of that epithet: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/10/graydon-carter-donald-trump I'm sure he'll be getting lots more mail from Trump! Greg Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 27, 2016, at 2:41 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Greg: > > We are taught to think that Trump is boorish and uncultured and from the > wrong side of the Hudson because of his hair-trigger reactions. How is it > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that this very teaching > reliably informs us that the whole playground game started with a taunt > from Senator Rubio? (It was, actually, a very well aimed taunt, designed to > bring out the ease with which this potential president can be jerked > around, one that suggests strategic knowledge of Trump's greatest > weaknesses; it was not, as Rubio himself claimed, something he just > stumbled into by accident in the desperate flailing of his dying campaign). > > We are taught to think that this is all highly regrettable. How is it > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that the very people > teaching this are the ones who created this carnival atmosphere where > serious discussions are impossible--mostly these hard, unfunny 24-7 comedy > shows which are always so hard up for their hard, unfunny material, > relying, again and again, on the puerile devices of profanity and > industrial quantities of canned laughter? How not to notice that people who > most "shocked, shocked!" are precisely the people who have littered > politics with what are essentially unserious, unsocial, non-political > lifestyle issues? (Not just the comedy shows. which have been the death of > comedy as well as the death of politics, but the Evangelical Christians, > and above all the 24-7 news people who have to talk about politics all day > and all night without ever really talking class or social issues of any > kind.) > > Here's what I notice. We notice Trump's boorishness and not Rubio's just > because Trump is bigger than Rubio (I am not referring to their male > endowments). We notice vulgarity in others but not in ourselves because > when I do it on national television and you laugh at it in the privacy of > your own home, it's just not so "in your face" for either of us. > > I notice that white working people have been successfully taught to ask > that if Trump's so dumb, how come he's rich? I notice that the simple job > of the media is to demonstrate that although he is rich, he is actually > rather insecure, thin-skinned, infantile, and his chain is easily jerked. > This shouldn't be that difficult, and it's only mildly subversive of class > politics in the USA, since there is only the slightest suggestion that some > people who are rich are actually not particularly mature, trustworthy, > or deserving of life-and-death powers over you and your children. > > But then in order to do this very simple task, the media now argue that > although he's rich, and although he's from the East Coast, he's from the > wrong side of the river, and his playground demeanour shows it. In other > words, although he's rich, he's really poor. > > No wonder Trump is so popular! > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > >> Should we say anything about the fact that nobody has mentioned the "hand >> envy" moment of one of the recent Republican debates (the one where >> politics was raised to new lows)? >> >> http://www.businessinsider.com/new-yorker-cover-about-trumps-hand-size-2016-3 >> (you should really check out the original debate - really amazing stuff) >> >> Nor has anyone said anything about the hailing hand gesture done at some >> Trump rallies (note: this is a Trump-supporting page, but no, I'm not a >> Trump supporter, it had the least ads of any of the descriptions I could >> find): >> >> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/08/trump_controvery_over_trump_pledge_salute.html >> >> Did everyone just assume that this is common knowledge? Or did people not >> know about these hand-y origins? >> And if you didn't know about this, does knowing this deepen the meaning of >> the image? >> >> and a recent Daily show segment where Black Trump responds to the New >> Yorker cover: >> >> http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-daily-shows-black-trump-reenacts-the-donalds-crazy-rant-about-his-hands/ >> >> -greg >> >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Annalisa Aguilar >> wrote: >> >>> >>> BTW: >>> >>> Eugenics has the Greek etymology of eu- meaning "good" or "well," and >>> genos, meaning "race," "stock," "kin," that is... "well-born". >>> >>> This may relate to the short fingers, which also makes a reference to >>> mating, and also possibly, just possibly sterilization. >>> >>> The image becomes cleverer every second! >>> >>> :) >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Annalisa >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Mar 27 16:30:14 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 16:30:14 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: <471491D9-2E8F-4729-894C-C0F92134A446@gmail.com> References: <471491D9-2E8F-4729-894C-C0F92134A446@gmail.com> Message-ID: So there is a whole lot packed into that combination of word and image, or perhaps word/image. So many concepts woven into a single whole. Of course, one's knowledge of the parts is going to vary across populations, but the process of sense making at work appears common among us. What about the third or forth image down the line, the one with the stop sign. What is the sequence of meaning making as you look at that? mike As a second example I On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 4:06 PM, wrote: > David, > Yes, the effect of the message (and the implicit message of Trumps > campaign) > Is "rich outside, poor inside". > > But I think it was Spy magazine that long ago labeled Trump a > "short-fingered vulgarian". Here is a recent reprise by the author of that > epithet: > http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/10/graydon-carter-donald-trump > I'm sure he'll be getting lots more mail from Trump! > Greg > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Mar 27, 2016, at 2:41 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Greg: > > > > We are taught to think that Trump is boorish and uncultured and from the > > wrong side of the Hudson because of his hair-trigger reactions. How is it > > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that this very teaching > > reliably informs us that the whole playground game started with a taunt > > from Senator Rubio? (It was, actually, a very well aimed taunt, designed > to > > bring out the ease with which this potential president can be jerked > > around, one that suggests strategic knowledge of Trump's greatest > > weaknesses; it was not, as Rubio himself claimed, something he just > > stumbled into by accident in the desperate flailing of his dying > campaign). > > > > We are taught to think that this is all highly regrettable. How is it > > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that the very people > > teaching this are the ones who created this carnival atmosphere where > > serious discussions are impossible--mostly these hard, unfunny 24-7 > comedy > > shows which are always so hard up for their hard, unfunny material, > > relying, again and again, on the puerile devices of profanity and > > industrial quantities of canned laughter? How not to notice that people > who > > most "shocked, shocked!" are precisely the people who have littered > > politics with what are essentially unserious, unsocial, non-political > > lifestyle issues? (Not just the comedy shows. which have been the death > of > > comedy as well as the death of politics, but the Evangelical Christians, > > and above all the 24-7 news people who have to talk about politics all > day > > and all night without ever really talking class or social issues of any > > kind.) > > > > Here's what I notice. We notice Trump's boorishness and not Rubio's just > > because Trump is bigger than Rubio (I am not referring to their male > > endowments). We notice vulgarity in others but not in ourselves because > > when I do it on national television and you laugh at it in the privacy of > > your own home, it's just not so "in your face" for either of us. > > > > I notice that white working people have been successfully taught to ask > > that if Trump's so dumb, how come he's rich? I notice that the simple job > > of the media is to demonstrate that although he is rich, he is actually > > rather insecure, thin-skinned, infantile, and his chain is easily jerked. > > This shouldn't be that difficult, and it's only mildly subversive of > class > > politics in the USA, since there is only the slightest suggestion that > some > > people who are rich are actually not particularly mature, trustworthy, > > or deserving of life-and-death powers over you and your children. > > > > But then in order to do this very simple task, the media now argue that > > although he's rich, and although he's from the East Coast, he's from the > > wrong side of the river, and his playground demeanour shows it. In other > > words, although he's rich, he's really poor. > > > > No wonder Trump is so popular! > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Should we say anything about the fact that nobody has mentioned the > "hand > >> envy" moment of one of the recent Republican debates (the one where > >> politics was raised to new lows)? > >> > >> > http://www.businessinsider.com/new-yorker-cover-about-trumps-hand-size-2016-3 > >> (you should really check out the original debate - really amazing stuff) > >> > >> Nor has anyone said anything about the hailing hand gesture done at some > >> Trump rallies (note: this is a Trump-supporting page, but no, I'm not a > >> Trump supporter, it had the least ads of any of the descriptions I could > >> find): > >> > >> > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/08/trump_controvery_over_trump_pledge_salute.html > >> > >> Did everyone just assume that this is common knowledge? Or did people > not > >> know about these hand-y origins? > >> And if you didn't know about this, does knowing this deepen the meaning > of > >> the image? > >> > >> and a recent Daily show segment where Black Trump responds to the New > >> Yorker cover: > >> > >> > http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-daily-shows-black-trump-reenacts-the-donalds-crazy-rant-about-his-hands/ > >> > >> -greg > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> BTW: > >>> > >>> Eugenics has the Greek etymology of eu- meaning "good" or "well," and > >>> genos, meaning "race," "stock," "kin," that is... "well-born". > >>> > >>> This may relate to the short fingers, which also makes a reference to > >>> mating, and also possibly, just possibly sterilization. > >>> > >>> The image becomes cleverer every second! > >>> > >>> :) > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> Annalisa > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > >> Assistant Professor > >> Department of Anthropology > >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > >> Brigham Young University > >> Provo, UT 84602 > >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > >> > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Mar 27 18:36:50 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 01:36:50 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C6D5E9@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: , , <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C6D5E9@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Hi Micheal and others, I think I'd suggested eugenics, but Huw certainly pointed the way by naming phrenology, which is also a pseudoscience intended to define intelligence based upon measurements and proportion of the skull and facial features. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology I'd say Andy is correct to identify palmistry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmistry So I'm unsure that this has to do with cultural activity systems. In previous emails I had brought up eugenics because of the content of the words written on the palm and how preposterous these sentences are when considering the person we are discussing. The idea that biology of the hand can indicate worthiness of a presidential candidate is hand-in-hand with eugenics (pun intended!) I did some closer research on the lines and their significance in the lexicon of palmistry. Below is a longish exploration, and this is what I found: -"All the best people have this." That particular line is the girdle of Venus and indicates the ability to manipulate. -"Very big heart (but not like an enlarged heart or anything. Perfect size)." That line is the heart line, which has to do with emotional life. But here seems to have to do with his claim for robust health to preside. - "Line of intellect. Fantastic. Continues onto back of hand. [arrows pointing to back of hand]." The head line is the intellect, I suppose a long line would mean a smarter person, but who knows. - for all the fingers: -index: "Not short. Normal." -middle: "Doesn't mean a thing." -ring: "Nothing to see here, move along." -pinky: "You don't know what you're talking about." In my initial email, I pointed these out as denials compared to the other horizontally written texts, which make these affirmations of "greatness." That double speak seems Orwellian, (horizontal vs vertical are at the least orthogonal, and Trump does seem to speak orthogonally, and what I mean when I say that, is divisive. I mean these located on the mount of Luna: -"Respected by the Hispanics" -"Respected by the blacks." These just sound absurd to me. But then... the mount of Luna pertains to imagination, so there you go! On one page of palmistry it says: "If it appears overly developed, this individual may be letting his imagination run wild, thus clouding reality. This individual draws himself into his own fantasies." - "Gonna live a long time. LONG. Very, very healthy" The life line is the line circling the thumb, and the emphasis on LONG is likely not emphasized as an indication of length of life, but to call attention away from "not short." on the index finger. The only disqualifier for being president would be a person with very, very unhealthy heart. Like Cheney. (See the heart line above). -"Leadership skills up the wazoo." The thumb apparently indicates one's character, traits, temperament. "Lincoln" ; "FDR'; "Me" are written for presidents that in my estimation always get invoked during a presidential election cycle. By adding "Me" we certainly know whose hand this is. There is no Lincoln line or FDR line in palmistry! Nor a "Me" line, but with Trump "Me" is everything. And as David says, the linguistic patterns also give it away. Especially: -"Beautiful singing voice (You'd be surprised)." Appearing on the mount of Venus, which is about the arts and the finer things in life, hence "Beautiful singing". Also, upon further looking around, the custom in reading the left hand (for a right-handed person) indicates the character traits, personality and destiny one is born with. Which seems to coincide with the eugenics connection. That is, the right hand tells the future, and the left tells the past (for the right handed person). Michael, I am not convinced that Twitter is so important anymore, not as it was. They are loosing users each year and unless they alter the design, to be more than entertainment, we may be witnessing its diminishing returns. But it would make sense that Trump has a flock of lackeys doing his bidding to keep the echo chamber echoing. Certainly there is something studied in the way Trump uses language. He is inciting the people who believe in his mythos, but I hope he is also repelling enough of us who do not and will go out and vote. This reminds me of George Lakoff's "Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think" and how words activate the mythologies in our American culture. I actually suggested eugenics because of the horrifying experience it is watching him and the way he is inciting hatred and violence at his rallies. https://theintercept.com/2016/03/21/video-shows-donald-trump-incites-violence/ {aside: the weird thing about this story is that the fellow throwing the punch is African American and a Trump supporter. He is an airman from Davis-Mothan AFB. The white fellow wearing the american-flag shirt who the airman is attacking is an Anti-Trump protester. Like I said, it's all just weird.} Trump even makes people at his rallies take oaths (by raising their hands) to be sure to vote. And then there's the slow refutation of the KKK associations. On twitter a few weeks ago, he quoted Mussolini without attribution (?It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.? see: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-retweets-post-likening-him-to-mussolini/) When questioned by a journalist who tells him it is indeed a Mussolini quote, Trump just says something along the lines of, "I don't know if it is a Mussolini or not, but I think the quote is interesting." I also heard David Brooks speaking on NPR, clearly wanting to distance himself (as a Republican) from Trump. The radio segment was an attempt to explain why people are voting for him in the primaries. As an answer Brooks affirms that Trump is authoritarian and that that is what is appealing to Trump supporters. Now, with all the references to fascism, I applaud the New Yorker for their mastery of polysemic meaning without leaving the door open for Trump to sue them, as he likely would do. Whether there is authenticity or not to palmistry (certainly it isn't scientific), it is a masterful commentary on the hand-wavey politics of this candidate and his legitimacy (pun intended) Anyway, this is my armchair analysis on a Sunday. I am just really really happy that people are protesting at Trump rallies. It gives me hope. Kind regards, Annalisa From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Mar 27 18:54:13 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 01:54:13 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: <471491D9-2E8F-4729-894C-C0F92134A446@gmail.com>, Message-ID: WRT the stop sign cover, http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-2016-03-14 the order that I am looking across the composition is as follows: First, the stop sign. Second, the cross-guard (a black woman dressed in visible yellow) Third, three young black children crossing the street. Fourth, a white officer in the passenger seat of the police SUV. Fifth, stop sign again. Sixth, another white officer in the driver seat of the police SUV. (I notice both officers are looking out, away from the stop sign) Seventh, how the cross-guard is looking down at the third child and the third child is looking up at her. Eighth, everyone is dressed for winter while walking to school. It's cold outside. Ninth, it is an urban setting. Kind regards, Annalisa From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Mar 27 19:46:03 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 19:46:03 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: <471491D9-2E8F-4729-894C-C0F92134A446@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Analissa And how does the meaning of Stop change in the course of your noticing. For me the crossing guard scenario initially dominated and then was replaced by stop the cops from running over and killing the kids scenario took over, as I Black lives matter. Mike On Sunday, March 27, 2016, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > WRT the stop sign cover, > http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-2016-03-14 > the order that I am looking across the composition is as follows: > > First, the stop sign. > Second, the cross-guard (a black woman dressed in visible yellow) > Third, three young black children crossing the street. > Fourth, a white officer in the passenger seat of the police SUV. > Fifth, stop sign again. > Sixth, another white officer in the driver seat of the police SUV. (I > notice both officers are looking out, away from the stop sign) > Seventh, how the cross-guard is looking down at the third child and the > third child is looking up at her. > Eighth, everyone is dressed for winter while walking to school. It's cold > outside. > Ninth, it is an urban setting. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > -- 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 Mon Mar 28 03:01:49 2016 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:01:49 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: <471491D9-2E8F-4729-894C-C0F92134A446@gmail.com> Message-ID: I was puzzled by the stop sign facing out but that may be my lack of understanding of stop signs used by crossing guards in the US. Does it have STOP on both sides? Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: 28 March 2016 03:46 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation Hi Analissa And how does the meaning of Stop change in the course of your noticing. For me the crossing guard scenario initially dominated and then was replaced by stop the cops from running over and killing the kids scenario took over, as I Black lives matter. Mike On Sunday, March 27, 2016, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > WRT the stop sign cover, > http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-2016-03-14 > the order that I am looking across the composition is as follows: > > First, the stop sign. > Second, the cross-guard (a black woman dressed in visible yellow) > Third, three young black children crossing the street. > Fourth, a white officer in the passenger seat of the police SUV. > Fifth, stop sign again. > Sixth, another white officer in the driver seat of the police SUV. (I > notice both officers are looking out, away from the stop sign) > Seventh, how the cross-guard is looking down at the third child and the > third child is looking up at her. > Eighth, everyone is dressed for winter while walking to school. It's cold > outside. > Ninth, it is an urban setting. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > -- 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 glassman.13@osu.edu Mon Mar 28 04:59:41 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:59:41 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: <471491D9-2E8F-4729-894C-C0F92134A446@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C6D73C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Rod, Yes, it has stop on both sides. I wound up reading the short blurb first and the e-mails and along wih Mike I thought about protecting children from the police, but then of the cruelty of the Chicago school closings and the long and dangerous walk to school overseen by the denizens of the tyrant who demanded this. But I remember reading an article many years ago, an interview of John Lennon. He was being asked what inspired some of the great Beatles songs. I remember being so disappointed, it was just stuff that happened in his everyday life. John Fogarty of CCR also did an interview recently about the song Looking at my backdoor which everybody always assumed was about LSD. He said nah, it was just stories he was telling his young son to get him to eat. Sometimes I wonder if Moby Dick was jus a story about a big fish. MIchael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod Parker-Rees Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 6:02 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation I was puzzled by the stop sign facing out but that may be my lack of understanding of stop signs used by crossing guards in the US. Does it have STOP on both sides? Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: 28 March 2016 03:46 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation Hi Analissa And how does the meaning of Stop change in the course of your noticing. For me the crossing guard scenario initially dominated and then was replaced by stop the cops from running over and killing the kids scenario took over, as I Black lives matter. Mike On Sunday, March 27, 2016, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > WRT the stop sign cover, > http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-2016-03-14 > the order that I am looking across the composition is as follows: > > First, the stop sign. > Second, the cross-guard (a black woman dressed in visible yellow) > Third, three young black children crossing the street. > Fourth, a white officer in the passenger seat of the police SUV. > Fifth, stop sign again. > Sixth, another white officer in the driver seat of the police SUV. (I > notice both officers are looking out, away from the stop sign) > Seventh, how the cross-guard is looking down at the third child and > the third child is looking up at her. > Eighth, everyone is dressed for winter while walking to school. It's > cold outside. > Ninth, it is an urban setting. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > -- 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 glassman.13@osu.edu Mon Mar 28 05:18:27 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:18:27 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: , , <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C6D5E9@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C6E76E@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi AnnaLisa, I was recently have a discussion with students about leadership. Leadership is a big thing in our college right now and education in general. I suggested that there is no such thing as a good leader. I pointed to Bandura's idea that we tend to value those things we are good at but there is no such thing as absolute value. I expanded that we tend to see good leaders as having qualities we ourselves are good at - the definition of leader comes much more from being led than from the leaders. This seems to be true of at least some of the leadership programs I have come to know. The business school is running a program training principals. They claim it is based on leadership, but it is based on those qualities they are good at. I told my students that - as Dewey suggested - leaders should emerge in the moment. Principals should be decided upon by the teachers in the school. Anyway, a long winded way of saying that maybe a lot of semiotic mediation is based on what we are good at, because we value it. Perhaps not making that much sense. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 9:37 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation Hi Micheal and others, I think I'd suggested eugenics, but Huw certainly pointed the way by naming phrenology, which is also a pseudoscience intended to define intelligence based upon measurements and proportion of the skull and facial features. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology I'd say Andy is correct to identify palmistry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmistry So I'm unsure that this has to do with cultural activity systems. In previous emails I had brought up eugenics because of the content of the words written on the palm and how preposterous these sentences are when considering the person we are discussing. The idea that biology of the hand can indicate worthiness of a presidential candidate is hand-in-hand with eugenics (pun intended!) I did some closer research on the lines and their significance in the lexicon of palmistry. Below is a longish exploration, and this is what I found: -"All the best people have this." That particular line is the girdle of Venus and indicates the ability to manipulate. -"Very big heart (but not like an enlarged heart or anything. Perfect size)." That line is the heart line, which has to do with emotional life. But here seems to have to do with his claim for robust health to preside. - "Line of intellect. Fantastic. Continues onto back of hand. [arrows pointing to back of hand]." The head line is the intellect, I suppose a long line would mean a smarter person, but who knows. - for all the fingers: -index: "Not short. Normal." -middle: "Doesn't mean a thing." -ring: "Nothing to see here, move along." -pinky: "You don't know what you're talking about." In my initial email, I pointed these out as denials compared to the other horizontally written texts, which make these affirmations of "greatness." That double speak seems Orwellian, (horizontal vs vertical are at the least orthogonal, and Trump does seem to speak orthogonally, and what I mean when I say that, is divisive. I mean these located on the mount of Luna: -"Respected by the Hispanics" -"Respected by the blacks." These just sound absurd to me. But then... the mount of Luna pertains to imagination, so there you go! On one page of palmistry it says: "If it appears overly developed, this individual may be letting his imagination run wild, thus clouding reality. This individual draws himself into his own fantasies." - "Gonna live a long time. LONG. Very, very healthy" The life line is the line circling the thumb, and the emphasis on LONG is likely not emphasized as an indication of length of life, but to call attention away from "not short." on the index finger. The only disqualifier for being president would be a person with very, very unhealthy heart. Like Cheney. (See the heart line above). -"Leadership skills up the wazoo." The thumb apparently indicates one's character, traits, temperament. "Lincoln" ; "FDR'; "Me" are written for presidents that in my estimation always get invoked during a presidential election cycle. By adding "Me" we certainly know whose hand this is. There is no Lincoln line or FDR line in palmistry! Nor a "Me" line, but with Trump "Me" is everything. And as David says, the linguistic patterns also give it away. Especially: -"Beautiful singing voice (You'd be surprised)." Appearing on the mount of Venus, which is about the arts and the finer things in life, hence "Beautiful singing". Also, upon further looking around, the custom in reading the left hand (for a right-handed person) indicates the character traits, personality and destiny one is born with. Which seems to coincide with the eugenics connection. That is, the right hand tells the future, and the left tells the past (for the right handed person). Michael, I am not convinced that Twitter is so important anymore, not as it was. They are loosing users each year and unless they alter the design, to be more than entertainment, we may be witnessing its diminishing returns. But it would make sense that Trump has a flock of lackeys doing his bidding to keep the echo chamber echoing. Certainly there is something studied in the way Trump uses language. He is inciting the people who believe in his mythos, but I hope he is also repelling enough of us who do not and will go out and vote. This reminds me of George Lakoff's "Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think" and how words activate the mythologies in our American culture. I actually suggested eugenics because of the horrifying experience it is watching him and the way he is inciting hatred and violence at his rallies. https://theintercept.com/2016/03/21/video-shows-donald-trump-incites-violence/ {aside: the weird thing about this story is that the fellow throwing the punch is African American and a Trump supporter. He is an airman from Davis-Mothan AFB. The white fellow wearing the american-flag shirt who the airman is attacking is an Anti-Trump protester. Like I said, it's all just weird.} Trump even makes people at his rallies take oaths (by raising their hands) to be sure to vote. And then there's the slow refutation of the KKK associations. On twitter a few weeks ago, he quoted Mussolini without attribution ("It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep." see: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-retweets-post-likening-him-to-mussolini/) When questioned by a journalist who tells him it is indeed a Mussolini quote, Trump just says something along the lines of, "I don't know if it is a Mussolini or not, but I think the quote is interesting." I also heard David Brooks speaking on NPR, clearly wanting to distance himself (as a Republican) from Trump. The radio segment was an attempt to explain why people are voting for him in the primaries. As an answer Brooks affirms that Trump is authoritarian and that that is what is appealing to Trump supporters. Now, with all the references to fascism, I applaud the New Yorker for their mastery of polysemic meaning without leaving the door open for Trump to sue them, as he likely would do. Whether there is authenticity or not to palmistry (certainly it isn't scientific), it is a masterful commentary on the hand-wavey politics of this candidate and his legitimacy (pun intended) Anyway, this is my armchair analysis on a Sunday. I am just really really happy that people are protesting at Trump rallies. It gives me hope. Kind regards, Annalisa From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Mon Mar 28 05:20:22 2016 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:20:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C6D73C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <471491D9-2E8F-4729-894C-C0F92134A446@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C6D73C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: But what someone thinks of as 'just a story' may also pull together all sorts of loose ends and cultural bits and bobs. As I recall, bedtime stories told to children can often stray into a weird, semi-hallucinatory space as a nearly-asleep parent wanders on the margins of dreaming! Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael Sent: 28 March 2016 13:00 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation Hi Rod, Yes, it has stop on both sides. I wound up reading the short blurb first and the e-mails and along wih Mike I thought about protecting children from the police, but then of the cruelty of the Chicago school closings and the long and dangerous walk to school overseen by the denizens of the tyrant who demanded this. But I remember reading an article many years ago, an interview of John Lennon. He was being asked what inspired some of the great Beatles songs. I remember being so disappointed, it was just stuff that happened in his everyday life. John Fogarty of CCR also did an interview recently about the song Looking at my backdoor which everybody always assumed was about LSD. He said nah, it was just stories he was telling his young son to get him to eat. Sometimes I wonder if Moby Dick was jus a story about a big fish. MIchael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod Parker-Rees Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 6:02 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation I was puzzled by the stop sign facing out but that may be my lack of understanding of stop signs used by crossing guards in the US. Does it have STOP on both sides? Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: 28 March 2016 03:46 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation Hi Analissa And how does the meaning of Stop change in the course of your noticing. For me the crossing guard scenario initially dominated and then was replaced by stop the cops from running over and killing the kids scenario took over, as I Black lives matter. Mike On Sunday, March 27, 2016, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > WRT the stop sign cover, > http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-2016-03-14 > the order that I am looking across the composition is as follows: > > First, the stop sign. > Second, the cross-guard (a black woman dressed in visible yellow) > Third, three young black children crossing the street. > Fourth, a white officer in the passenger seat of the police SUV. > Fifth, stop sign again. > Sixth, another white officer in the driver seat of the police SUV. (I > notice both officers are looking out, away from the stop sign) > Seventh, how the cross-guard is looking down at the third child and > the third child is looking up at her. > Eighth, everyone is dressed for winter while walking to school. It's > cold outside. > Ninth, it is an urban setting. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > -- 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. ________________________________ [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 ulvi.icil@gmail.com Mon Mar 28 07:26:33 2016 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:26:33 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] The Last Post | The Anonymous Revolutionary Message-ID: http://theanonymousrevolutionary.com/2016/03/27/the-last-post/ Hello, did anybody know this little but great son of humanity? He died of terminal cancer. In his blog, in my views section, he advises, marxists internet archive for reading. I think that marxists.org can include his name in the list of thinkers, publish his biography, comments, entries. He deserves so much! Sorrowful, but what is much more important, so beautiful and so truthful, when he says, among many others, happy 6-7 novembers, long live bolshevism, that he is a marxist and a leninist...those days... He is the author of a book just published. Ulvi From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Mar 28 09:16:05 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:16:05 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C6D73C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <471491D9-2E8F-4729-894C-C0F92134A446@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C6D73C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Michael! Cops having been shooting black kids. And it is just the question of who the stop sign is directed toward which seems critical to the meaning of the image as I interpret it. I has benevolent street crossing with parental and community support on one side, but then it has the police on the other. So the meaning vascilates between YOU (the viewer) stop (as if you were the driver of the car seeing the sign) and YOU the guy who knows that from the point of view of those kids and the woman protecting them with her back to the police, its the COPS who have to stop doing what they have been doing. Again, multiple meanings layered into the image where they fuse into "*my* sense of *the* meaning." For those interested in this thread, I attache Eisenshtein's article on word and image. The comments in the prologue are interesting too. mike On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Rod, > > Yes, it has stop on both sides. I wound up reading the short blurb first > and the e-mails and along wih Mike I thought about protecting children from > the police, but then of the cruelty of the Chicago school closings and the > long and dangerous walk to school overseen by the denizens of the tyrant > who demanded this. > > But I remember reading an article many years ago, an interview of John > Lennon. He was being asked what inspired some of the great Beatles songs. > I remember being so disappointed, it was just stuff that happened in his > everyday life. > > John Fogarty of CCR also did an interview recently about the song Looking > at my backdoor which everybody always assumed was about LSD. He said nah, > it was just stories he was telling his young son to get him to eat. > Sometimes I wonder if Moby Dick was jus a story about a big fish. > > MIchael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod Parker-Rees > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 6:02 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation > > I was puzzled by the stop sign facing out but that may be my lack of > understanding of stop signs used by crossing guards in the US. Does it have > STOP on both sides? > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: 28 March 2016 03:46 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation > > Hi Analissa > > And how does the meaning of Stop change in the course of your noticing. > For me the crossing guard scenario initially dominated and then was > replaced by stop the cops from running over and killing the kids scenario > took over, as I Black lives matter. > Mike > > On Sunday, March 27, 2016, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > > WRT the stop sign cover, > > http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-2016-03-14 > > the order that I am looking across the composition is as follows: > > > > First, the stop sign. > > Second, the cross-guard (a black woman dressed in visible yellow) > > Third, three young black children crossing the street. > > Fourth, a white officer in the passenger seat of the police SUV. > > Fifth, stop sign again. > > Sixth, another white officer in the driver seat of the police SUV. (I > > notice both officers are looking out, away from the stop sign) > > Seventh, how the cross-guard is looking down at the third child and > > the third child is looking up at her. > > Eighth, everyone is dressed for winter while walking to school. It's > > cold outside. > > Ninth, it is an urban setting. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Annalisa > > > > > -- > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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. > > > -- 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: Eisenstein_PDF.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 6340774 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160328/ac2ae8d9/attachment-0001.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Mar 28 09:33:04 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:33:04 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry to be slow in following up here, Rod. And as usual, topics get a little jumbled up. We were back here: Mike: The internal dialogue of consciousness available to an adult is sort of like sharing with oneself over time. You wrote, in an earlier note, in part: *I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might well be with a whole host of internalised others. We got off on the "sharing part" of this topic, but we did not hold onto the "me as adult suffused with concepts embodied in language/culture." I take it that what you and David were discussing is the nature of experience before I was an adult, say, when I was 18 months old. That matrix of concepts has been only very diffusely congealed into anything so spatio/temporally distinctive as the sound package "oriole." The developmental question becomes how the biologically developing human organism acquires/is acquired by such ?culturally organized categories. If I understood David, he said it was through a process of second language learning. Is that how you conceive of the process? Tomasello et al seem relevant to this discussion because they have looked in such interesting ways at the ontogenetic origins of joint mediated activity. So much to take into account!! mike ? On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Rod Parker-Rees Yes indeed but how much is the oneself that one shares with really one's > 'own' self, and how much a composite, formed out of previous interactions > with others? > > Surely this sort of internalised conversation is an example of Vygotsky's > 'Higher Mental Functions' - taken in from experience in social interactions. > > ailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: 22 March 2016 16:29 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > This is very much along the lines of what I was thinking Rod: > > *I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a > culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might > well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we can share an > experience with our friends without needing them to be there ('X and Y > would love this').* > > Except, i started to think, I can also share with myself, mediated by that > same system of concepts. I can stand there and, post facto, think, "Gee, > its sure rare to see an oriole" and think about last time I saw one there, > or remind myself to get some grape jelly to see if I can entice more to > come visit. And I can sure think about telling my wife when I go back into > the house and the pleasure she will get from knowing we had a distinguished > visitor. > > The internal dialogue of consciousness available to an adult is sort of > like sharing with oneself over time. Dialogic imagination? > > mike > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Mike, > > > > I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a > > culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience > > might well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we > > can share an experience with our friends without needing them to be > > there ('X and Y would love this') - and of course social media allows > > us to share experiences with remote friends, though I am not sure that > > the pleasure of sharing is of quite the same order - maybe it is more > > so for digital natives. > > > > My interest in 'which comes first' is really ontological - I would > > have to argue that for any individual person context always comes > > first because we are born into a pre-existing (albeit fluid) culture. > > I am also inclined to go along with Steven Mithen's contention (e.g. > > in 'The Singing > > Neanderthals') that interactions and relations, first expressed > > through movements and vocalisations, must have preceded any form of > language. > > > > An image which I particularly like is of a mountain rising out of > > lush, verdant valleys. Down in the valleys life is abundant, rich and > > complicated but as one ascends the mountain the vegetation gives way to > ice and snow. > > The air becomes clear and cold and one can see for miles. Climbing is > > a very direct form of abstraction, lifting oneself out of the muddle > > of context to be able to see further and more clearly. But you can't > > live up there for long. Very young children live in the foothills but > > they don't have to find their own ways up to higher places because > > they are able to see their parents and siblings making the ascent. > > > > For me it is a particular challenge to try to imagine what it is like > > to be a two-year-old, not yet able to lift oneself out of one's > > immediate context to think 'about' things but instead able to think in > > and with the things and people and interactions that make up one's > > environment or context. I would argue that it is easy to forget this > 'withness thinking' > > as John Shotter calls it, once thought is marshalled by more or less > > shared concept systems. Even the most abstract of thinkers still have > > to come down the mountain sometimes to engage with other people, to > > eat, wash and sleep and these contexts of lived practice are also > > internalised, like the opinions of our friends, and become part of our > > own relationships with our contexts. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > > Sent: 22 March 2016 00:27 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > > > Dear Colleagues. > > > > Mike: > > > > I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of > > foreground and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the > > process of an event becoming a semantic event. I was under the > > influence of the discussion of fon/phonem and Rod's questions about > which comes first. > > > > > > > > My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced > > it pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there > > is no name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the issue > > of sharing is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, not > > talking aloud, with whom was I sharing an event being woven into a > > semantic event? The semantic event happened, but the sharing? > > > > > > > > It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should > > find its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. > > > > > > > > Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should > > occur mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this > > list represents, seems non-accidental. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around > > three uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of > > origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking about > > and speak to David's characterization of my views. > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I > > > understand it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in > > > systems of > > concepts > > > and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant > > > there > > is > > > no significant distinction between the attention and activity and > > > the knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words > > > allow multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can > > > exist > > outside > > > any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but > > > whether we think lived experience is reduced or elevated to > > > shareable knowledge, > > that > > > knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and vitality > > > by 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable text depends > > > on every hearer/reader/participant's ability to connect shared > > > branches with > > private > > > roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared > > > directly, in shared attention, for example, it does not depend on > participants' > > ability > > > to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It > > > may be possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing > > > into words (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or > > > elevation) but > > this > > > translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > > > > > > I have a feeling that weather is already half way reduced/elevated, > > > a generalisation which can describe an experience shared by many, > > > even if > > it > > > has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking > > > about climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - a > > > flash of lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the face of > that beast! > > > > > > It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into a > > > semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants > > 'discover' > > > that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be differentiated > > > into 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can delight in the > > > experience of 'locking on' which is felt when attention is shared. I > > > am still very uncertain about the boundary beyond which an event can > > > be thought of as semantic. I suspect that the felt familiarity of a > > > situation which has > > been > > > shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with > > > anything as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of > > > 'Ah, I know what > > to > > > expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of > > > experience, elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of > context. > > > > > > It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a > > > chance > > of > > > sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling with > > these > > > posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or what > > feels > > > to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > > Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > > > > > Rod: > > > > > > I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to see > > > a cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the speech > > > community as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the persons who > > > speak a > > language) > > > and the context of situation (the elements of the context of culture > > > and the elements of a material situational setting which are > > > selected to be semanticized in a given exchange). This cline of > > > instantiation between context of culture and context of situation is > > > exactly what Malinowski describes in the long addendum he appended to > "The Meaning of Meaning" > > > in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear about > > > distinguishing between a material situational setting and a context > > > of situation. > > > > > > Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes the > > > relationship between context of culture and context of situation as > > > being like weather and climate: two different perspectives brought > > > about by two different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. > > > The difference in timescale does mean that in a context of culture > > > certain phenomena which > > I > > > will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena > > > which > > I > > > will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while in > > > a context of situation, we find things the other way around: the > > > interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus tends to > > > get foregrounded while the cultural and social are left implicit and > > therefore > > > backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > > > weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun and > > > the extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what is > > > accidental > > is > > > the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive is > > > the pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar radiation > > > is...well, incidental. > > > > > > Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" > > > I think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > > > McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: > > > taken too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To me > > > the reason why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn mother > > > tongue as a SECOND language is because in the long run climate > > > determines weather rather than the other way around; in a language, > > > the context of culture > > is > > > ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and > > > even precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing > > > more than the sum total of contexts of situations. > > > > > > But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really > > > do create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine > > > Nelson and > > also > > > Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) then > > > we should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of the > > > cline of instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > > > > > > So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, a > > text, > > > so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the > > > recording thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to call > > > discourse, but such is the conservatism of academics we tend to > > > associate text with writing rather than with thinking and with > > > speech. If that were text, though, infants would have to wait for > > > half a decade for it, and they don't. Text is semantic; we have text > > > wherever we have the analysis of a setting into a context and the > > > sharing of that analysis through communication. Text is the beast > > > itself and not simply its footprints in the snow. > > > > > > And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum total > > > of everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks and > understands: > > > it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point was > > > that it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of text (and > > > in some cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, it's > > > literally reducible to a handful of written texts). It's not just > > > "behaviour", or "activity", or "production". > > > > > > It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. It's > > > not activity because it's not defined by single goals. And it's not > > production > > > because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production > > > of commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. > > > But it's value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in > > > at least one > > way > > > the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of > > culture > > > is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to assume > > > that since attention and even activity is shared, the knowledge > > > which subtends them must be shared as well. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > David, > > > > > > > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the > > > > discussion of the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > > > > > > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense that, > > > > in the wider sense to which you allude, text is always between > > > > people. It is when people connect their interests in some way and > > > > share meanings that stuff and events get woven into text. Even if > > > > you hadn't said anything when you presented the book to the 9 > > > > month old baby, the second presentation would be recognised as a > > > > social event - 'Oh yes, this thing that we do' and this feeling of > > > > shared experience does seem to play an important part in infants' > > > > assisted ability to weave public, cultural meanings into their > private, personal experiences. > > > > > > > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven context > > > > of culture so what happens to and around them is pre-patterned and > > > > because humans are oddly interested in what their infants are > > > > interested in, interactions serve to model particular weaving > > > > patterns and styles. Studies by Tomasello, Moll and colleagues > > > > (discussed in > > > Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > > > > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > > > > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new > > > > developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social > > > > neuroscience. Cambridge, > > > > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > > > > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected toys > > > > but only if they have played with the toys together - watching the > > > > researcher play with the toys, or playing with them while the > > > > researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, enactive, > > > > interactive experience to shape future interactions (and the > > > > infant's knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended to other > > > > researchers or > > > other toys). > > > > > > > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no > > > > context without specific, personally experienced and woven text? > > > > Or is there a pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to the > > > > weaver, influences and guides the texts which come to be formed? > > > > Infants are surrounded by a cultural context which is richly and > > > > densely shaped by the concept systems which have evolved out of > > > > the patterns in people's behaviour. What their caregivers do with, > > > > to and around them is shaped both by what those caregivers have > > > > seen other people do and by a long history of people hearing and > > > > reading about what other people do and have done. I would like to > > > > be able to use context to refer to the culturally patterned > > > > environment in which infants are helped to notice particular kinds > > > > of patterns but you want the word (if I have understood correctly > > > > - and what are the chances?) to refer to a personal frame of > > > > reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the way the 'same' > > > > cultural environment can be woven into different contexts by > > > > different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word for the > > > > co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to join in > > > > before they have sorted out or internalised the concept systems > > > > which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new job or a > > > > new role to sidle in from peripheral participation to feeling they > > > > belong > > at > > > the core of the group. > > > > > > > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in > > > > Social > > > > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > > > > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan > > > > argument that infant development has to be understood in terms of > > > > interwoven processes of making sense and making relationships - > > > > drawing together a huge amount of research on early communication > and meaning sharing. > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > Rod: > > > > > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > > > > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. > > > > We ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one > > > > Korean speaking parent and one English speaking one): > > > > > > > > a) English: What's this? > > > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the > > > > next three years, as the child first figures out that a book is not > edible. > > > > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just > > > > colors but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there are > letters. > > > > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > > > > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That > > > > the problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > > > > > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > > > > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND > > > > time I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! > > > > You could see that although the child had no idea what was being > > > > said, the child was might just be starting to think some > > > > proto-language equivalent of "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi got > > > > mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And after a minute or so, the child > > > > looked up, as if to see whether the large person making so much > > > > noise might be thinking something along > > > those lines too. > > > > > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at all > > > > whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just > > > > perceptions, the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much the > > > > same. But it seems that there's only text when something has been > > > > selected from the material setting by some human consciousness or > > > > consciousnesses for semiotic transformation; there's only text > > > > when there some kind of "metaphor" (gestural, phonological, > > > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely THIS > > > > act of selection which transforms a material setting into a > > > > context, and it's premature to speak of context before that > > > > happens. So for example I wouldn't use the term context for the > > > > first week of work, only for the second. > > > > > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and > > > > "cultural context", because I believe that context, like text, > > > > exists on a cline of instantiation. At one end, we have the > > > > relationship between a context of situation (Malinowski) and a > > > > text (Halliday). That's the end I'm at right now. At the other, we > > > > have the relationship between a context of culture (again, > > > > Malinowski) and...and a whole language system (again, Halliday). I > > > > gather that's the end at which the KEEP and the Community > > > > Development projects in Micronesia and the Delinquency Research > plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > > > > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > > > > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well > > > > start > > > looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > > > > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole > > > > problem of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how > > > > exciting it is, and that's about how baffling it is too. I know you > are an old hand. > > > > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what to > > > > do > > > > next?) > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about > > > > > context since my own understanding of this term is in the > > > > > context of trying to understand how preverbal children make > > > > > sense (meanings framed by social and physical contexts more than > > > > > by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to separate a text > > > > > out of the context, an > > 'individual' > > > > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which > > > > > concepts have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The > > > > > intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within > > > > > a family is of a different order to that available between > > > > > otherwise unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one > > > > > is rooted in a history of shared experiences in common contexts > > > > > the other is rooted in a history of more or less abstracted > > > > > ideas (concepts) which refer to > > > > experiences but 'from above' > > > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is > > > > > never completely achievable and I think the positive consequence > > > > > of this is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a > > > > > process, a conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with > > > > > other people is not an achieved end but a means towards sharing > > > > > understanding (I like the idea that the word understanding is > misunderstood - 'under' > > > > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' > > > > > rather > > than > > > 'below' > > > > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > > > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood > > > > > is importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or > > > > > meeting with them, can enrich our personal understanding by > > > > > exposing us to different ways of thinking but I think we have to > > > > > recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be > > > > > understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest > > > > > knowing of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal > > > > > abstractions of philosophical > > > > thought-play. > > > > > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little > > > > > bunch of us has different concerns and shines light on different > > > > > aspects of > > > > human life. > > > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can > > > > > understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that > > > > > CC has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity > > > > > setting, shared activity and the law of genetic development. > > > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in > > > > > appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out > > > > > that in the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was > > > > > generally practiced as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison > > > > > studies", but everything I read in your paper tends to suggest > > > > > "culture" is still understood and used in just this sense. > > > > > Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to > > > > > "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a > > > > > mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. > > > > > Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of > > > > > shared concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a > > > > > concept is ultimately the larger system of practices to which it > > > > > is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can only be > > > > > shared when the broader context of its use is already > > > assimilated. > > > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that > > > > > you were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a > > > > > different meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. > > > > > "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors feeling the same emotions > > > > > and values in the same situations," and I don't even know it means > to "feel values." > > > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out > > > > > to be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, > > > > > collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as > > > > > cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think > > > > > they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in > step. > > > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > > > > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual > > > > > appropriation by means of having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff > > > > > O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I > > > > > > thought that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, > > > > > > most folks in each appeared to be unaware of the other > > > > > > (judging by the infrequency of common citations). As described > > > > > > in our article, we and several of our colleagues have been > > > > > > influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT concepts in our research > and intervention programs. > > > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work > > > > > > with > > > > Greenfield. > > > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too > > > > > > would be interested to hear of additional influence in the > > > > > > opposite > > > > direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial > > > > > > systems with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory > > > > > > boldly attempts to be a universal theory of how change occurs > > > > > > using Delta as the symbol for change. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive > > > > > > science, psycho-neurology, and a potential center of > > > > > > commonality in psychology of interest! That is the goal of the > > > > > > article, i.e., to show how the commonality of CC and CHAT have > > > > > > the potential to form that commonality with developmental, > > > > > > educational, cognitive, and > > > > neuro-psychology. > > > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in > > > > > > the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I > > > > > >> was not familiar to cultural community psychology and this > > > > > >> and the other papers in the symposium do a great job > > > > > >> introducing and concisely describing the field, and how it > > > > > >> evolved from community to cultural community psychology. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community > > > > > >> psychology itself from the start. As I progressed in my > > > > > >> reading, I then found clear references to these influences, > > > > > >> which even meant the delay of the publishing of Roland's > > > > > >> work, I assume, due to the important input that Vygotsky's > > > > > >> publications meant for the project. But then I wondered on > > > > > >> what had been other sources. What were other foundational > > > > > >> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about them > > > > > >> in part because, while the paper discusses many examples in > > > > > >> which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about > > > > > >> the (possible) inputs in the other > > > direction. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > > > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, > > > > > >> however brief, mentions to research in cognitive science and > > > > > >> psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is mentioned as > > > > > >> a move forward towards integration. In the case of CHAT, this > > > > > >> was pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline > > > > > >> based on dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. > > > > > >> Delta theory (I just had a very brief first > > > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > > > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is a > > > > > >> central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other > > > > > >> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights > > > > > >> to those more familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and > > > > > >> Delta > > > theory. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper > > > > > >> by Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most recent > > > > > >> issue of > > MCA. > > > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff > > > > > >> saw as people with a strong family resemblance. He passed > > > > > >> away before this part of the discussion could take place. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > > > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the > > > > > >> approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not only > > > > > >> because it is an acronym for cultural-historical activity > > > > > >> theory, but because we have a tradition of chatting here > > > > > >> about the ideas in papers that sample our different interests. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an > > > > > >> invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. > > > > > >> May it be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to > > > > > >> promote growth enhancing communication. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> get your copy at > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be > > > > > >> interested. > > > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mike > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science > > > > > >> with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA > > > > > > Division 27) > > > > > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > > > > > 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]< > > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > > > 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]< > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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. > > > > > > > -- > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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. > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ewall@umich.edu Mon Mar 28 09:35:46 2016 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:35:46 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20D92530-B24C-4745-9694-AC5D5B48D122@umich.edu> David Very insightful. At least,that is my perspective. Ed > On Mar 27, 2016, at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Greg: > > We are taught to think that Trump is boorish and uncultured and from the > wrong side of the Hudson because of his hair-trigger reactions. How is it > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that this very teaching > reliably informs us that the whole playground game started with a taunt > from Senator Rubio? (It was, actually, a very well aimed taunt, designed to > bring out the ease with which this potential president can be jerked > around, one that suggests strategic knowledge of Trump's greatest > weaknesses; it was not, as Rubio himself claimed, something he just > stumbled into by accident in the desperate flailing of his dying campaign). > > We are taught to think that this is all highly regrettable. How is it > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that the very people > teaching this are the ones who created this carnival atmosphere where > serious discussions are impossible--mostly these hard, unfunny 24-7 comedy > shows which are always so hard up for their hard, unfunny material, > relying, again and again, on the puerile devices of profanity and > industrial quantities of canned laughter? How not to notice that people who > most "shocked, shocked!" are precisely the people who have littered > politics with what are essentially unserious, unsocial, non-political > lifestyle issues? (Not just the comedy shows. which have been the death of > comedy as well as the death of politics, but the Evangelical Christians, > and above all the 24-7 news people who have to talk about politics all day > and all night without ever really talking class or social issues of any > kind.) > > Here's what I notice. We notice Trump's boorishness and not Rubio's just > because Trump is bigger than Rubio (I am not referring to their male > endowments). We notice vulgarity in others but not in ourselves because > when I do it on national television and you laugh at it in the privacy of > your own home, it's just not so "in your face" for either of us. > > I notice that white working people have been successfully taught to ask > that if Trump's so dumb, how come he's rich? I notice that the simple job > of the media is to demonstrate that although he is rich, he is actually > rather insecure, thin-skinned, infantile, and his chain is easily jerked. > This shouldn't be that difficult, and it's only mildly subversive of class > politics in the USA, since there is only the slightest suggestion that some > people who are rich are actually not particularly mature, trustworthy, > or deserving of life-and-death powers over you and your children. > > But then in order to do this very simple task, the media now argue that > although he's rich, and although he's from the East Coast, he's from the > wrong side of the river, and his playground demeanour shows it. In other > words, although he's rich, he's really poor. > > No wonder Trump is so popular! > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > >> Should we say anything about the fact that nobody has mentioned the "hand >> envy" moment of one of the recent Republican debates (the one where >> politics was raised to new lows)? >> >> http://www.businessinsider.com/new-yorker-cover-about-trumps-hand-size-2016-3 >> (you should really check out the original debate - really amazing stuff) >> >> Nor has anyone said anything about the hailing hand gesture done at some >> Trump rallies (note: this is a Trump-supporting page, but no, I'm not a >> Trump supporter, it had the least ads of any of the descriptions I could >> find): >> >> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/08/trump_controvery_over_trump_pledge_salute.html >> >> Did everyone just assume that this is common knowledge? Or did people not >> know about these hand-y origins? >> And if you didn't know about this, does knowing this deepen the meaning of >> the image? >> >> and a recent Daily show segment where Black Trump responds to the New >> Yorker cover: >> >> http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-daily-shows-black-trump-reenacts-the-donalds-crazy-rant-about-his-hands/ >> >> -greg >> >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Annalisa Aguilar >> wrote: >> >>> >>> BTW: >>> >>> Eugenics has the Greek etymology of eu- meaning "good" or "well," and >>> genos, meaning "race," "stock," "kin," that is... "well-born". >>> >>> This may relate to the short fingers, which also makes a reference to >>> mating, and also possibly, just possibly sterilization. >>> >>> The image becomes cleverer every second! >>> >>> :) >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Annalisa >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 Mon Mar 28 09:43:51 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:43:51 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: <20D92530-B24C-4745-9694-AC5D5B48D122@umich.edu> References: <20D92530-B24C-4745-9694-AC5D5B48D122@umich.edu> Message-ID: Mike, I believe the final scene of Eisenshtein is missing. (or at least the last few pages seem to be missing - perhaps intentionally so?). -greg On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > David > > Very insightful. At least,that is my perspective. > > Ed > > > On Mar 27, 2016, at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > Greg: > > > > We are taught to think that Trump is boorish and uncultured and from the > > wrong side of the Hudson because of his hair-trigger reactions. How is it > > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that this very teaching > > reliably informs us that the whole playground game started with a taunt > > from Senator Rubio? (It was, actually, a very well aimed taunt, designed > to > > bring out the ease with which this potential president can be jerked > > around, one that suggests strategic knowledge of Trump's greatest > > weaknesses; it was not, as Rubio himself claimed, something he just > > stumbled into by accident in the desperate flailing of his dying > campaign). > > > > We are taught to think that this is all highly regrettable. How is it > > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that the very people > > teaching this are the ones who created this carnival atmosphere where > > serious discussions are impossible--mostly these hard, unfunny 24-7 > comedy > > shows which are always so hard up for their hard, unfunny material, > > relying, again and again, on the puerile devices of profanity and > > industrial quantities of canned laughter? How not to notice that people > who > > most "shocked, shocked!" are precisely the people who have littered > > politics with what are essentially unserious, unsocial, non-political > > lifestyle issues? (Not just the comedy shows. which have been the death > of > > comedy as well as the death of politics, but the Evangelical Christians, > > and above all the 24-7 news people who have to talk about politics all > day > > and all night without ever really talking class or social issues of any > > kind.) > > > > Here's what I notice. We notice Trump's boorishness and not Rubio's just > > because Trump is bigger than Rubio (I am not referring to their male > > endowments). We notice vulgarity in others but not in ourselves because > > when I do it on national television and you laugh at it in the privacy of > > your own home, it's just not so "in your face" for either of us. > > > > I notice that white working people have been successfully taught to ask > > that if Trump's so dumb, how come he's rich? I notice that the simple job > > of the media is to demonstrate that although he is rich, he is actually > > rather insecure, thin-skinned, infantile, and his chain is easily jerked. > > This shouldn't be that difficult, and it's only mildly subversive of > class > > politics in the USA, since there is only the slightest suggestion that > some > > people who are rich are actually not particularly mature, trustworthy, > > or deserving of life-and-death powers over you and your children. > > > > But then in order to do this very simple task, the media now argue that > > although he's rich, and although he's from the East Coast, he's from the > > wrong side of the river, and his playground demeanour shows it. In other > > words, although he's rich, he's really poor. > > > > No wonder Trump is so popular! > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Should we say anything about the fact that nobody has mentioned the > "hand > >> envy" moment of one of the recent Republican debates (the one where > >> politics was raised to new lows)? > >> > >> > http://www.businessinsider.com/new-yorker-cover-about-trumps-hand-size-2016-3 > >> (you should really check out the original debate - really amazing stuff) > >> > >> Nor has anyone said anything about the hailing hand gesture done at some > >> Trump rallies (note: this is a Trump-supporting page, but no, I'm not a > >> Trump supporter, it had the least ads of any of the descriptions I could > >> find): > >> > >> > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/08/trump_controvery_over_trump_pledge_salute.html > >> > >> Did everyone just assume that this is common knowledge? Or did people > not > >> know about these hand-y origins? > >> And if you didn't know about this, does knowing this deepen the meaning > of > >> the image? > >> > >> and a recent Daily show segment where Black Trump responds to the New > >> Yorker cover: > >> > >> > http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-daily-shows-black-trump-reenacts-the-donalds-crazy-rant-about-his-hands/ > >> > >> -greg > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> BTW: > >>> > >>> Eugenics has the Greek etymology of eu- meaning "good" or "well," and > >>> genos, meaning "race," "stock," "kin," that is... "well-born". > >>> > >>> This may relate to the short fingers, which also makes a reference to > >>> mating, and also possibly, just possibly sterilization. > >>> > >>> The image becomes cleverer every second! > >>> > >>> :) > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> Annalisa > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Mar 28 10:11:58 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:11:58 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: <20D92530-B24C-4745-9694-AC5D5B48D122@umich.edu> Message-ID: The Eisenshtein material I sent was from the section of the first chapter of the book that I had students read in class. It has informed my thought about the word/image problem. There are lots of fascinating ideas in his work, including the link between Chines ideograms and the principle of montage. I am sure more is available elsewhere, that is what I had to hand. mike On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Mike, > I believe the final scene of Eisenshtein is missing. > (or at least the last few pages seem to be missing - perhaps intentionally > so?). > -greg > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > > > David > > > > Very insightful. At least,that is my perspective. > > > > Ed > > > > > On Mar 27, 2016, at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > > Greg: > > > > > > We are taught to think that Trump is boorish and uncultured and from > the > > > wrong side of the Hudson because of his hair-trigger reactions. How is > it > > > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that this very > teaching > > > reliably informs us that the whole playground game started with a taunt > > > from Senator Rubio? (It was, actually, a very well aimed taunt, > designed > > to > > > bring out the ease with which this potential president can be jerked > > > around, one that suggests strategic knowledge of Trump's greatest > > > weaknesses; it was not, as Rubio himself claimed, something he just > > > stumbled into by accident in the desperate flailing of his dying > > campaign). > > > > > > We are taught to think that this is all highly regrettable. How is it > > > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that the very people > > > teaching this are the ones who created this carnival atmosphere where > > > serious discussions are impossible--mostly these hard, unfunny 24-7 > > comedy > > > shows which are always so hard up for their hard, unfunny material, > > > relying, again and again, on the puerile devices of profanity and > > > industrial quantities of canned laughter? How not to notice that people > > who > > > most "shocked, shocked!" are precisely the people who have littered > > > politics with what are essentially unserious, unsocial, non-political > > > lifestyle issues? (Not just the comedy shows. which have been the death > > of > > > comedy as well as the death of politics, but the Evangelical > Christians, > > > and above all the 24-7 news people who have to talk about politics all > > day > > > and all night without ever really talking class or social issues of any > > > kind.) > > > > > > Here's what I notice. We notice Trump's boorishness and not Rubio's > just > > > because Trump is bigger than Rubio (I am not referring to their male > > > endowments). We notice vulgarity in others but not in ourselves because > > > when I do it on national television and you laugh at it in the privacy > of > > > your own home, it's just not so "in your face" for either of us. > > > > > > I notice that white working people have been successfully taught to ask > > > that if Trump's so dumb, how come he's rich? I notice that the simple > job > > > of the media is to demonstrate that although he is rich, he is actually > > > rather insecure, thin-skinned, infantile, and his chain is easily > jerked. > > > This shouldn't be that difficult, and it's only mildly subversive of > > class > > > politics in the USA, since there is only the slightest suggestion that > > some > > > people who are rich are actually not particularly mature, trustworthy, > > > or deserving of life-and-death powers over you and your children. > > > > > > But then in order to do this very simple task, the media now argue that > > > although he's rich, and although he's from the East Coast, he's from > the > > > wrong side of the river, and his playground demeanour shows it. In > other > > > words, although he's rich, he's really poor. > > > > > > No wonder Trump is so popular! > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Greg Thompson < > > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Should we say anything about the fact that nobody has mentioned the > > "hand > > >> envy" moment of one of the recent Republican debates (the one where > > >> politics was raised to new lows)? > > >> > > >> > > > http://www.businessinsider.com/new-yorker-cover-about-trumps-hand-size-2016-3 > > >> (you should really check out the original debate - really amazing > stuff) > > >> > > >> Nor has anyone said anything about the hailing hand gesture done at > some > > >> Trump rallies (note: this is a Trump-supporting page, but no, I'm not > a > > >> Trump supporter, it had the least ads of any of the descriptions I > could > > >> find): > > >> > > >> > > > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/08/trump_controvery_over_trump_pledge_salute.html > > >> > > >> Did everyone just assume that this is common knowledge? Or did people > > not > > >> know about these hand-y origins? > > >> And if you didn't know about this, does knowing this deepen the > meaning > > of > > >> the image? > > >> > > >> and a recent Daily show segment where Black Trump responds to the New > > >> Yorker cover: > > >> > > >> > > > http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-daily-shows-black-trump-reenacts-the-donalds-crazy-rant-about-his-hands/ > > >> > > >> -greg > > >> > > >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> BTW: > > >>> > > >>> Eugenics has the Greek etymology of eu- meaning "good" or "well," and > > >>> genos, meaning "race," "stock," "kin," that is... "well-born". > > >>> > > >>> This may relate to the short fingers, which also makes a reference to > > >>> mating, and also possibly, just possibly sterilization. > > >>> > > >>> The image becomes cleverer every second! > > >>> > > >>> :) > > >>> > > >>> Kind regards, > > >>> > > >>> Annalisa > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> 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 > -- 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 Mon Mar 28 10:36:30 2016 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:36:30 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think what is so powerful about human ontogeny is the constant reinvention (or reimagining) of culturally organised categories by (more or less) culturally organised people. The image I hold from Vygotsky's discussion of the relationship between spontaneous and 'scientific' or 'schooled' categories is shaped by Hofstadter's tree of thought ?We can liken the thought processes to a tree whose visible part stands sturdily above ground but depends vitally on its invisible roots which extend way below ground giving it stability and nourishment. In this case the roots symbolize complex processes which take place below the level of the [conscious] mind ? processes whose effects permeate the way we think but of which we are unaware? G?del Escher, Bach: 569 Spontaneous concepts (patterns found in our own experience) come up from our roots to give body and vitality to the culturally organised categories which come down to us through our branches, giving form and 'thinkaboutability' to our experience. Your own kaleidoscope of experience may not be readily traceable in your felt response to the flash of the oriole but it will have made that experience distinctively your own. I am sure you are familiar also with Dewey's observation that: "We rarely recognize the extent in which our conscious estimates of what is worthwhile and what is not, are due to standards of which we are not conscious at all. But in general it may be said that the things which we take for granted without enquiry or reflection are just the things which determine our conscious thinking and decide our conclusions. And these habitudes which lie below the level of reflection are just those which have been formed in the constant give and take of relationship with others" (Democracy and Education, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/852/852-h/852-h.htm ) What I find mind-boggling is the 'fractal' way in which language allows us to share (albeit only ever partially) in the 'habitudes which lie below the level of reflection' of other people. So your experience of that oriole moment might be coloured and given vitality not only by your own lived experience of watching birds and sharing the pleasure of birdwatching with others but also by stories, poems, films, conversations, anecdotes and any number of other cultural tools for meaning sharing - tools which allow you to read through particular structures of words or signs to get a glimpse (a flash?) of what things MEAN to another person. And what things mean to that other person will in turn have been calibrated and tuned up through that person's exposure to glimpses of meaning for others. So even the intensely sensory jolt of colour from the oriole sparks a pattern of meaning which would not exist in quite the same form were it not for a whole history of cultural activity. I think second language learning is markedly distinct from first language(s) learning because the learner of a second language already has words to describe what is being learned (words like 'word', 'meaning', 'language', 'talk' etc.). The blend of what comes from roots and what comes from branches is very different! It is fascinating to look at the shifts in terminology used to capture the magic of children's discovery of the shareableness of meaning - 'joint attention', 'joint mediated activity', 'shared attention', etc. What is fascinating both for infants and for their caregivers is the way meaning can provide insights into what it is like to be someone else. When I notice what something means to YOU I learn something about what is distinctive about you, so our sense of other selves is constructed from our sensitivity to the way an experience is refracted differently in its meaning for different people. Noticing what others notice doesn't only give us glimpses of other selfs, it also, indirectly, offers us an opportunity to see back through the history that has shaped other people's ways of noticing things. The more people we get to know, the more sensitive and nuanced our noticings may become, as we notice how noticing differs between people and between contexts. However much we are able to notice, there is always more behind and beneath, of which we are not conscious at all. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: 28 March 2016 17:33 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? Sorry to be slow in following up here, Rod. And as usual, topics get a little jumbled up. We were back here: Mike: The internal dialogue of consciousness available to an adult is sort of like sharing with oneself over time. You wrote, in an earlier note, in part: *I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience might well be with a whole host of internalised others. We got off on the "sharing part" of this topic, but we did not hold onto the "me as adult suffused with concepts embodied in language/culture." I take it that what you and David were discussing is the nature of experience before I was an adult, say, when I was 18 months old. That matrix of concepts has been only very diffusely congealed into anything so spatio/temporally distinctive as the sound package "oriole." The developmental question becomes how the biologically developing human organism acquires/is acquired by such ?culturally organized categories. If I understood David, he said it was through a process of second language learning. Is that how you conceive of the process? Tomasello et al seem relevant to this discussion because they have looked in such interesting ways at the ontogenetic origins of joint mediated activity. So much to take into account!! mike ? On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Rod Parker-Rees Yes indeed but how much is the oneself that one shares with really one's > 'own' self, and how much a composite, formed out of previous > interactions with others? > > Surely this sort of internalised conversation is an example of > Vygotsky's 'Higher Mental Functions' - taken in from experience in social interactions. > > ailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: 22 March 2016 16:29 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > This is very much along the lines of what I was thinking Rod: > > *I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in a > culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience > might well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we > can share an experience with our friends without needing them to be > there ('X and Y would love this').* > > Except, i started to think, I can also share with myself, mediated by > that same system of concepts. I can stand there and, post facto, > think, "Gee, its sure rare to see an oriole" and think about last time > I saw one there, or remind myself to get some grape jelly to see if I > can entice more to come visit. And I can sure think about telling my > wife when I go back into the house and the pleasure she will get from > knowing we had a distinguished visitor. > > The internal dialogue of consciousness available to an adult is sort > of like sharing with oneself over time. Dialogic imagination? > > mike > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Mike, > > > > I would say that for you, as an already accomplished participant in > > a culture of concept systems, the sharing of your oriole experience > > might well be with a whole host of internalised others. As adults we > > can share an experience with our friends without needing them to be > > there ('X and Y would love this') - and of course social media > > allows us to share experiences with remote friends, though I am not > > sure that the pleasure of sharing is of quite the same order - maybe > > it is more so for digital natives. > > > > My interest in 'which comes first' is really ontological - I would > > have to argue that for any individual person context always comes > > first because we are born into a pre-existing (albeit fluid) culture. > > I am also inclined to go along with Steven Mithen's contention (e.g. > > in 'The Singing > > Neanderthals') that interactions and relations, first expressed > > through movements and vocalisations, must have preceded any form of > language. > > > > An image which I particularly like is of a mountain rising out of > > lush, verdant valleys. Down in the valleys life is abundant, rich > > and complicated but as one ascends the mountain the vegetation gives > > way to > ice and snow. > > The air becomes clear and cold and one can see for miles. Climbing > > is a very direct form of abstraction, lifting oneself out of the > > muddle of context to be able to see further and more clearly. But > > you can't live up there for long. Very young children live in the > > foothills but they don't have to find their own ways up to higher > > places because they are able to see their parents and siblings making the ascent. > > > > For me it is a particular challenge to try to imagine what it is > > like to be a two-year-old, not yet able to lift oneself out of one's > > immediate context to think 'about' things but instead able to think > > in and with the things and people and interactions that make up > > one's environment or context. I would argue that it is easy to > > forget this > 'withness thinking' > > as John Shotter calls it, once thought is marshalled by more or less > > shared concept systems. Even the most abstract of thinkers still > > have to come down the mountain sometimes to engage with other > > people, to eat, wash and sleep and these contexts of lived practice > > are also internalised, like the opinions of our friends, and become > > part of our own relationships with our contexts. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > > Sent: 22 March 2016 00:27 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > > > Dear Colleagues. > > > > Mike: > > > > I did not intend to offer the oriole example as an example of > > foreground and background, David. Rather, what I was after was the > > process of an event becoming a semantic event. I was under the > > influence of the discussion of fon/phonem and Rod's questions about > which comes first. > > > > > > > > My example seems to fit Rod's specifies the process as I experienced > > it pretty well. An initial flash of unexpected light for which there > > is no name that becomes lexified as "the male oriole!" But the > > issue of sharing is a little problematic. Standing in the backyard, > > not talking aloud, with whom was I sharing an event being woven into > > a semantic event? The semantic event happened, but the sharing? > > > > > > > > It seems important that Tomsello's monumental corpus of work should > > find its way into this discussion. And Nelson's too. > > > > > > > > Anyway, thanks to all for bringing round this topic. That it should > > occur mutually relevant to community psychology and to whatever this > > list represents, seems non-accidental. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > PS- On the question of context and figure/ground, I will send around > > three uses of the metaphor of context as rope. Their variety of > > origins/applications of the metaphor strike me as worth thinking > > about and speak to David's characterization of my views. > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > This is helpful, David but I am not sure that your cline, as I > > > understand it, fully recognises the asymmetries of texts framed in > > > systems of > > concepts > > > and texts framed in 'real' things and interactions. For the infant > > > there > > is > > > no significant distinction between the attention and activity and > > > the knowledge which subtends them. Concepts, categories and words > > > allow multiple instances to be woven into nameable ideas which can > > > exist > > outside > > > any particular 'real' context and can therefore be shared but > > > whether we think lived experience is reduced or elevated to > > > shareable knowledge, > > that > > > knowledge can only be understood if it is given colour and > > > vitality by 'spontaneous concepts'. So the wordy, abstractable > > > text depends on every hearer/reader/participant's ability to > > > connect shared branches with > > private > > > roots - breathing meaning into it but when meaning is shared > > > directly, in shared attention, for example, it does not depend on > participants' > > ability > > > to make connections with the branches of a system of concepts. It > > > may be possible to put this sort of 'face to face' meaning sharing > > > into words (though inevitably this will involve some reduction or > > > elevation) but > > this > > > translation is not a necessary part of the experience of the text. > > > > > > I have a feeling that weather is already half way > > > reduced/elevated, a generalisation which can describe an > > > experience shared by many, even if > > it > > > has not attained the level of generalisation required for thinking > > > about climate. Shared attention may be something more contained - > > > a flash of lightning, a gust of wind or a flurry of snow on the > > > face of > that beast! > > > > > > It seems to me that what is required for an event to be woven into > > > a semantic event is just that its noticing is shared. When infants > > 'discover' > > > that a previously undifferentiated 'Great We' can be > > > differentiated into 'my attention' AND 'your attention' they can > > > delight in the experience of 'locking on' which is felt when > > > attention is shared. I am still very uncertain about the boundary > > > beyond which an event can be thought of as semantic. I suspect > > > that the felt familiarity of a situation which has > > been > > > shared before (like Andy's book sharing but not necessarily with > > > anything as texty as a book) may be enough to produce a sense of > > > 'Ah, I know what > > to > > > expect here' which might convert an experience into a kind of > > > experience, elevating it (or reducing it) out of the weather of > context. > > > > > > It is difficult to form uncertain ideas into texts which stand a > > > chance > > of > > > sharing meaning with people I have never even met but grappling > > > with > > these > > > posts does sometimes bring me up with a flash of connection (or > > > what > > feels > > > to me like connection!). I did like the footprints in the snow. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > > Sent: 21 March 2016 20:57 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Which comes first, context or text? > > > > > > Rod: > > > > > > I think the word "context" will work just fine. We just have to > > > see a cline of instantiation, from the context of culture (the > > > speech community as a whole, seen as the sum total of all the > > > persons who speak a > > language) > > > and the context of situation (the elements of the context of > > > culture and the elements of a material situational setting which > > > are selected to be semanticized in a given exchange). This cline > > > of instantiation between context of culture and context of > > > situation is exactly what Malinowski describes in the long > > > addendum he appended to > "The Meaning of Meaning" > > > in Ogden and Richards, except that Malinowski is not so clear > > > about distinguishing between a material situational setting and a > > > context of situation. > > > > > > Halliday (who was a big influence on Stephen P. Witte) describes > > > the relationship between context of culture and context of > > > situation as being like weather and climate: two different > > > perspectives brought about by two different timescales on one and the same phenomenon. > > > The difference in timescale does mean that in a context of culture > > > certain phenomena which > > I > > > will call cultural and social are foregrounded and other phenomena > > > which > > I > > > will call interpersonal and psychological are backgrounded, while > > > in a context of situation, we find things the other way around: > > > the interpersonal and psychological is made explicit and thus > > > tends to get foregrounded while the cultural and social are left > > > implicit and > > therefore > > > backgrounded. This is not that different from climate and > > > weather: with climate, what is decisive is the angle of the sun > > > and the extent to which the earth retains solar radiation and what > > > is accidental > > is > > > the patterns of air movement, while with weather what is decisive > > > is the pattern of air movement and the incidence of solar > > > radiation is...well, incidental. > > > > > > Mike likes to say that foreground and background "create each other" > > > I think that's one reason he is so taken with his orioles and with > > > McDermott's spirals/concentric circles. I am less taken with these: > > > taken too far, they set my dialectics against my materialism. To > > > me the reason why the infant must give up proto-speech and learn > > > mother tongue as a SECOND language is because in the long run > > > climate determines weather rather than the other way around; in a > > > language, the context of culture > > is > > > ultimately mightier than the context of situation even though (and > > > even precisely because) the context of culture is really nothing > > > more than the sum total of contexts of situations. > > > > > > But let us apply Mike's principle here. If context and text really > > > do create each other (and if they evolve, as you and Katherine > > > Nelson and > > also > > > Vygotsky describe, out of an undifferentiated joint attention) > > > then we should be able to find a counterpart to text at one end of > > > the cline of instantiation as easily as we do at the other. > > > > > > So we do. The counterpart to a context of situation is, of course, > > > a > > text, > > > so long as we see text as a semantic event and not simply the > > > recording thereof in paper and ink. Text is what people like to > > > call discourse, but such is the conservatism of academics we tend > > > to associate text with writing rather than with thinking and with > > > speech. If that were text, though, infants would have to wait for > > > half a decade for it, and they don't. Text is semantic; we have > > > text wherever we have the analysis of a setting into a context and > > > the sharing of that analysis through communication. Text is the > > > beast itself and not simply its footprints in the snow. > > > > > > And the counterpart to a context of culture? It's just the sum > > > total of everything that a speech community writes, reads, speaks > > > and > understands: > > > it's the sum total of text produced in a language. But my point > > > was that it's text, or anyway the socio/cultural equivalent of > > > text (and in some cases, e.g. the Torah or the Confucian Classics, > > > it's literally reducible to a handful of written texts). It's not > > > just "behaviour", or "activity", or "production". > > > > > > It's not behaviour because it's more about knowing than doing. > > > It's not activity because it's not defined by single goals. And > > > it's not > > production > > > because there is no exchanging of labor and capital, no production > > > of commodities, no use or exchange value, just "value" tout court. > > > But it's value to which every infant is invited to partake, and in > > > at least one > > way > > > the infant's understanding of what is going on with the context of > > culture > > > is more accurate than ours. Infants, unlike adults, appear to > > > assume that since attention and even activity is shared, the > > > knowledge which subtends them must be shared as well. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > David, > > > > > > > > I have opened a new strand to avoid distracting from the > > > > discussion of the Tharp and O'Donnell article. > > > > > > > > If we go back to the roots of text in weaving it makes sense > > > > that, in the wider sense to which you allude, text is always > > > > between people. It is when people connect their interests in > > > > some way and share meanings that stuff and events get woven into > > > > text. Even if you hadn't said anything when you presented the > > > > book to the 9 month old baby, the second presentation would be > > > > recognised as a social event - 'Oh yes, this thing that we do' > > > > and this feeling of shared experience does seem to play an important part in infants' > > > > assisted ability to weave public, cultural meanings into their > private, personal experiences. > > > > > > > > As Vygotsky noted, infants develop within an already woven > > > > context of culture so what happens to and around them is > > > > pre-patterned and because humans are oddly interested in what > > > > their infants are interested in, interactions serve to model > > > > particular weaving patterns and styles. Studies by Tomasello, > > > > Moll and colleagues (discussed in > > > Moll, H. and Meltzoff, A. > > > > (2011) Joint Attention as the fundamental basis of understanding > > > > perspectives. In A. Seemann (ed.) Joint Attention: new > > > > developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social > > > > neuroscience. Cambridge, > > > > MA: MIT Press, 393-413) show that 12 month old infants appear to > > > > 'remember' their interactions with a researcher and selected > > > > toys but only if they have played with the toys together - > > > > watching the researcher play with the toys, or playing with them > > > > while the researcher watches, does not provide enough embodied, > > > > enactive, interactive experience to shape future interactions > > > > (and the infant's knowledge is 'context specific' - not extended > > > > to other researchers or > > > other toys). > > > > > > > > So there is a naming problem here. Is there, as you say, no > > > > context without specific, personally experienced and woven text? > > > > Or is there a pre-existing context which, as yet unbeknown to > > > > the weaver, influences and guides the texts which come to be formed? > > > > Infants are surrounded by a cultural context which is richly and > > > > densely shaped by the concept systems which have evolved out of > > > > the patterns in people's behaviour. What their caregivers do > > > > with, to and around them is shaped both by what those caregivers > > > > have seen other people do and by a long history of people > > > > hearing and reading about what other people do and have done. I > > > > would like to be able to use context to refer to the culturally > > > > patterned environment in which infants are helped to notice > > > > particular kinds of patterns but you want the word (if I have > > > > understood correctly > > > > - and what are the chances?) to refer to a personal frame of > > > > reference. This is helpful for me, highlighting the way the 'same' > > > > cultural environment can be woven into different contexts by > > > > different weavers, but that leaves me needing another word for > > > > the co-woven, negotiated environment which enables infants to > > > > join in before they have sorted out or internalised the concept > > > > systems which shape it. And which allows someone entering a new > > > > job or a new role to sidle in from peripheral participation to > > > > feeling they belong > > at > > > the core of the group. > > > > > > > > If you haven't already read Katherine Nelson's 'Young Minds in > > > > Social > > > > Worlds: experience, meaning and memory' (Harvard 2007) I would > > > > strongly recommend this - she develops a strongly Vygotskyan > > > > argument that infant development has to be understood in terms > > > > of interwoven processes of making sense and making relationships > > > > - drawing together a huge amount of research on early > > > > communication > and meaning sharing. > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 20:31 > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > Rod: > > > > > > > > Actually, that's just the kind of text I'm working with right now. > > > > Here's the plan. Every week, we give a nine month old baby a book. > > > > We ask four questions in two languages (because the baby has one > > > > Korean speaking parent and one English speaking one): > > > > > > > > a) English: What's this? > > > > b) English: Is it a ...? > > > > c) Yigot mueo ya? (What's this?) > > > > d) ... yi ya? (Is it a ...?) > > > > > > > > Sometimes we mix up the order. This goes on every week for the > > > > next three years, as the child first figures out that a book is > > > > not > edible. > > > > That it contains pictures. That that the pictures are not just > > > > colors but meant to be signs. That beneath the pictures there > > > > are > letters. > > > > That the letters are not just drawings but are meant to be symbols. > > > > That the symbols encode settings, characters, and problems. That > > > > the problems can only be solved by means of dialogue, etc. > > > > > > > > Now, the first time I tried this, the child simply could not > > > > concentrate on the object for any length of time. But the SECOND > > > > time I did it, the child literally could not look away from it! > > > > You could see that although the child had no idea what was being > > > > said, the child was might just be starting to think some > > > > proto-language equivalent of "What's this?" "Is it a...?" "Yi > > > > got mu eo ya?" "Chaek yi ya?" And after a minute or so, the > > > > child looked up, as if to see whether the large person making so > > > > much noise might be thinking something along > > > those lines too. > > > > > > > > So maybe THAT's text! And as you can see it doesn't matter at > > > > all whether the text realizes concepts or feelings or just > > > > perceptions, the underlying semiotic mechanism is pretty much > > > > the same. But it seems that there's only text when something has > > > > been selected from the material setting by some human > > > > consciousness or consciousnesses for semiotic transformation; > > > > there's only text when there some kind of "metaphor" (gestural, > > > > phonological, > > > > lexicogrammatical) for context. It seems that it's precisely > > > > THIS act of selection which transforms a material setting into a > > > > context, and it's premature to speak of context before that > > > > happens. So for example I wouldn't use the term context for the > > > > first week of work, only for the second. > > > > > > > > I think it's legitimate to talk about "social context" and > > > > "cultural context", because I believe that context, like text, > > > > exists on a cline of instantiation. At one end, we have the > > > > relationship between a context of situation (Malinowski) and a > > > > text (Halliday). That's the end I'm at right now. At the other, > > > > we have the relationship between a context of culture (again, > > > > Malinowski) and...and a whole language system (again, Halliday). > > > > I gather that's the end at which the KEEP and the Community > > > > Development projects in Micronesia and the Delinquency Research > plans are working. But I don't see how "activity" > > > > or "behaviour" can ever realize context, unless it is semiotic > > > > activity and semiotic behaviour, in which case we might as well > > > > start > > > looking around for text. That's where the garlic and ginger is. > > > > > > > > (Rod--I'm new at this stuff: watching infants crack the whole > > > > problem of anthropogenesis single-handed, I mean. That's how > > > > exciting it is, and that's about how baffling it is too. I know > > > > you > are an old hand. > > > > Can you give me any tips on what to read and advice about what > > > > to do > > > > next?) > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Rod Parker-Rees < > > > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about > > > > > context since my own understanding of this term is in the > > > > > context of trying to understand how preverbal children make > > > > > sense (meanings framed by social and physical contexts more > > > > > than by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to separate > > > > > a text out of the context, an > > 'individual' > > > > > thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur. > > > > > > > > > > It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which > > > > > concepts have their meanings is particularly relevant here. > > > > > The intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or > > > > > within a family is of a different order to that available > > > > > between otherwise unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. > > > > > Where one is rooted in a history of shared experiences in > > > > > common contexts the other is rooted in a history of more or > > > > > less abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to > > > > experiences but 'from above' > > > > > rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is > > > > > never completely achievable and I think the positive > > > > > consequence of this is that intersubjectivity has to be > > > > > understood as a process, a conversation rather than an answer. > > > > > 'Feeling' with other people is not an achieved end but a means > > > > > towards sharing understanding (I like the idea that the word > > > > > understanding is > misunderstood - 'under' > > > > > deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' > > > > > rather > > than > > > 'below' > > > > > - to understand something is to stand IN it). > > > > > > > > > > We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or > > > > > watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood > > > > > is importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or > > > > > meeting with them, can enrich our personal understanding by > > > > > exposing us to different ways of thinking but I think we have > > > > > to recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be > > > > > understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest > > > > > knowing of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal > > > > > abstractions of philosophical > > > > thought-play. > > > > > > > > > > So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable. > > > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > > Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34 > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. > > > > > I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little > > > > > bunch of us has different concerns and shines light on > > > > > different aspects of > > > > human life. > > > > > But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we > > > > > can understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news > > > > > that CC has appropriated zone of proximal development, > > > > > activity setting, shared activity and the law of genetic development. > > > > > I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent > > > > > in appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed > > > > > out that in the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was > > > > > generally practiced as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison > > > > > studies", but everything I read in your paper tends to suggest > > > > > "culture" is still understood and used in just this sense. > > > > > Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to > > > > > "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much > > > > > a mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. > > > > > Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of > > > > > shared concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a > > > > > concept is ultimately the larger system of practices to which > > > > > it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can only be > > > > > shared when the broader context of its use is already > > > assimilated. > > > > > Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised > > > > > that you were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a > > > > > different meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. > > > > > "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors feeling the same > > > > > emotions and values in the same situations," and I don't even > > > > > know it means > to "feel values." > > > > > Connected with this the description of joint action, turned > > > > > out to be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see > > > > > it, collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint > > > > > action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well > > > > > as cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I > > > > > think they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone > > > > > marching in > step. > > > > > I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating > > > > > different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual > > > > > appropriation by means of having a "center of commonality." > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, > > > > > Cliff O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I > > > > > > thought that although CC and CHAT have many common > > > > > > interests, most folks in each appeared to be unaware of the > > > > > > other (judging by the infrequency of common citations). As > > > > > > described in our article, we and several of our colleagues > > > > > > have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT concepts in > > > > > > our research > and intervention programs. > > > > > > As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP > > > > > > project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work > > > > > > with > > > > Greenfield. > > > > > > Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I > > > > > > too would be interested to hear of additional influence in > > > > > > the opposite > > > > direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial > > > > > > systems with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory > > > > > > boldly attempts to be a universal theory of how change > > > > > > occurs using Delta as the symbol for change. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive > > > > > > science, psycho-neurology, and a potential center of > > > > > > commonality in psychology of interest! That is the goal of > > > > > > the article, i.e., to show how the commonality of CC and > > > > > > CHAT have the potential to form that commonality with > > > > > > developmental, educational, cognitive, and > > > > neuro-psychology. > > > > > > Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in > > > > > > the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. > > > > > >> I was not familiar to cultural community psychology and > > > > > >> this and the other papers in the symposium do a great job > > > > > >> introducing and concisely describing the field, and how it > > > > > >> evolved from community to cultural community psychology. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT > > > > > >> literature had influenced the development of community > > > > > >> psychology itself from the start. As I progressed in my > > > > > >> reading, I then found clear references to these influences, > > > > > >> which even meant the delay of the publishing of Roland's > > > > > >> work, I assume, due to the important input that Vygotsky's > > > > > >> publications meant for the project. But then I wondered on > > > > > >> what had been other sources. What were other foundational > > > > > >> influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about > > > > > >> them in part because, while the paper discusses many > > > > > >> examples in which CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to > > > > > >> know more about the (possible) inputs in the other > > > direction. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of > > > > > >> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, > > > > > >> however brief, mentions to research in cognitive science > > > > > >> and psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is > > > > > >> mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In the > > > > > >> case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a > > > > > >> scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. > > > > > >> Delta theory (I just had a very brief first > > > > > >> contact) seems to build upon the notion of psychosocial systems. > > > > > >> This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who surely is > > > > > >> a central source. Again, here I would love to hear what > > > > > >> other insights/sources are involved that may provide new > > > > > >> insights to those more familiar to CHAT but not so much > > > > > >> with CC and Delta > > > theory. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > >> Alfredo > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> on behalf of mike cole > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39 > > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Article for Discussion > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the > > > > > >> paper by Roland Tharp and Cliff O'Donnell from the most > > > > > >> recent issue of > > MCA. > > > > > >> Roland wanted to stimulate discussion among what he and > > > > > >> Cliff saw as people with a strong family resemblance. He > > > > > >> passed away before this part of the discussion could take place. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural > > > > > >> Community Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in > > > > > >> the approach referred to often in these pages as CHAT, not > > > > > >> only because it is an acronym for cultural-historical > > > > > >> activity theory, but because we have a tradition of > > > > > >> chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our different interests. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and > > > > > >> an invitation to people from Community Psychology to join in. > > > > > >> May it be celebratory of Roland's long life seeking to > > > > > >> promote growth enhancing communication. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> get your copy at > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might > > > > > >> be interested. > > > > > >> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mike > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > > > > >> science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. > > > > > > Professor Emeritus > > > > > > Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action > > > > > > (APA Division 27) > > > > > > > > > > > > University of Hawai'i > > > > > > Department of Psychology > > > > > > 2530 Dole Street > > > > > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > > > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > > > > > 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]< > > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > > > 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]< > > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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]< > > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > 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. > > > > > > > -- > > 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]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > 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. > > -- 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 dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Mar 28 14:19:08 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:19:08 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: <20D92530-B24C-4745-9694-AC5D5B48D122@umich.edu> References: <20D92530-B24C-4745-9694-AC5D5B48D122@umich.edu> Message-ID: One of the reasons why Eisenstein is so well known to us today is that Lenin saw D.W. Griffith's fascist recruiting film "Birth of a Nation" and realized the potential of the medium immediately (unfortunately, so did Woodrow Wilson, and the Democrats launched a national campaign around the film which probably led to tens of thousands of lynchings). Griffith was one of the very first to realize that you could superimpose "thinking" sequences on visual sequences in much the same way that subtitles impose verbal sequences upon them (he says he got the idea from Dickens). Eisenstein, who was at the time a member of Bukharin's "Proletkult", got the message: he'd served in the Red Army and had somehow learned some Japanese, and he was near Luria, Vygotsky, and Marr, who ran the centre for the study of oriental languages where Volosinov and Medvedev worked. After a visit by Kabuki artists to Moscow, he became convinced that Asian languages were "montage": that is, they were a "unit", a Gestalt", that consisted of a VISUAL semantic component and a PHONETIC realization. (This is not always true, but it is true of the majority of Chinese characters). As Vygotsky points out, a lot of our words function a little like this: if you say, for example, "blackbird", "stand on solid grounds", or "stubby-pawed vulgarian" there is a more or less visual element ("black", "stand..."ground", "stubby-pawed") and a more or less semantic element ("bird", "solid", "vulgarian"). Which is primordial? Which predominates? Even though language is a (typically) auditory medium, most languages tend to descriptions (of space and even of time) in a VISUAL mode (so for example we express time spatially when we use prepositions like "at eight oh seven", "on Tuesday morning", and "in late March"). But of course perception, or affective perception, is really only the beginning of word meanings; word meanings develop, and you can even argue that it is precisely because language is typically an auditory medium that it has such developed synaesthesic properties. The problem, for Eisenstein, was to make sure that the visceral, visual components do not overwhelm these other properties but instead serve to intensify and to concretize and to channel them towards higher verbal meanings, which is why--perhaps under Vygotsky's influence--he quit Proletkult and began to consider more seriously how problems of verbal story-telling are handled in literature. And the task of Griffith, and later of Riefenstahl and of Donald Trump is to do precisely the opposite: to use the visceral, visual components to overwhelm the audience's sense of civility, courtesy, humanity. I was living in the UK when John Major, who was the son of an circus performer and an unsuccessful manufacturer of porcelain garden gnomes, succeeded Margaret Thatcher, the proud daughter of a Lincolnshire grocer, as head of the Conservatives and as Prime Minister. Now, for the most part, the UK does observe a kind of "political correctness" about people's class backgrounds, only it is not called that and people don't sneer at it as they do in the USA: the usual term, when it is explicitly referred to at all, is civility, courtesy or just common decency. But during a press conference John Major dropped a ballpoint pen and bent over to pick it up, and from their vantage point in the gallery some of the liberal press observed that he tucked his shirttails into his underpants. The Guardian cartoonist, Steve Bell, portrayed the prime minister with his underpants OVER his trousers and his shirt for years and years, until people completely forgot why. In protest, and out of working class solidarity, I have tucked my shirt-tails into my underwear ever since. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > David > > Very insightful. At least,that is my perspective. > > Ed > > > On Mar 27, 2016, at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > Greg: > > > > We are taught to think that Trump is boorish and uncultured and from the > > wrong side of the Hudson because of his hair-trigger reactions. How is it > > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that this very teaching > > reliably informs us that the whole playground game started with a taunt > > from Senator Rubio? (It was, actually, a very well aimed taunt, designed > to > > bring out the ease with which this potential president can be jerked > > around, one that suggests strategic knowledge of Trump's greatest > > weaknesses; it was not, as Rubio himself claimed, something he just > > stumbled into by accident in the desperate flailing of his dying > campaign). > > > > We are taught to think that this is all highly regrettable. How is it > > possible to teach us to do this--WITHOUT noticing that the very people > > teaching this are the ones who created this carnival atmosphere where > > serious discussions are impossible--mostly these hard, unfunny 24-7 > comedy > > shows which are always so hard up for their hard, unfunny material, > > relying, again and again, on the puerile devices of profanity and > > industrial quantities of canned laughter? How not to notice that people > who > > most "shocked, shocked!" are precisely the people who have littered > > politics with what are essentially unserious, unsocial, non-political > > lifestyle issues? (Not just the comedy shows. which have been the death > of > > comedy as well as the death of politics, but the Evangelical Christians, > > and above all the 24-7 news people who have to talk about politics all > day > > and all night without ever really talking class or social issues of any > > kind.) > > > > Here's what I notice. We notice Trump's boorishness and not Rubio's just > > because Trump is bigger than Rubio (I am not referring to their male > > endowments). We notice vulgarity in others but not in ourselves because > > when I do it on national television and you laugh at it in the privacy of > > your own home, it's just not so "in your face" for either of us. > > > > I notice that white working people have been successfully taught to ask > > that if Trump's so dumb, how come he's rich? I notice that the simple job > > of the media is to demonstrate that although he is rich, he is actually > > rather insecure, thin-skinned, infantile, and his chain is easily jerked. > > This shouldn't be that difficult, and it's only mildly subversive of > class > > politics in the USA, since there is only the slightest suggestion that > some > > people who are rich are actually not particularly mature, trustworthy, > > or deserving of life-and-death powers over you and your children. > > > > But then in order to do this very simple task, the media now argue that > > although he's rich, and although he's from the East Coast, he's from the > > wrong side of the river, and his playground demeanour shows it. In other > > words, although he's rich, he's really poor. > > > > No wonder Trump is so popular! > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Should we say anything about the fact that nobody has mentioned the > "hand > >> envy" moment of one of the recent Republican debates (the one where > >> politics was raised to new lows)? > >> > >> > http://www.businessinsider.com/new-yorker-cover-about-trumps-hand-size-2016-3 > >> (you should really check out the original debate - really amazing stuff) > >> > >> Nor has anyone said anything about the hailing hand gesture done at some > >> Trump rallies (note: this is a Trump-supporting page, but no, I'm not a > >> Trump supporter, it had the least ads of any of the descriptions I could > >> find): > >> > >> > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/08/trump_controvery_over_trump_pledge_salute.html > >> > >> Did everyone just assume that this is common knowledge? Or did people > not > >> know about these hand-y origins? > >> And if you didn't know about this, does knowing this deepen the meaning > of > >> the image? > >> > >> and a recent Daily show segment where Black Trump responds to the New > >> Yorker cover: > >> > >> > http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-daily-shows-black-trump-reenacts-the-donalds-crazy-rant-about-his-hands/ > >> > >> -greg > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> BTW: > >>> > >>> Eugenics has the Greek etymology of eu- meaning "good" or "well," and > >>> genos, meaning "race," "stock," "kin," that is... "well-born". > >>> > >>> This may relate to the short fingers, which also makes a reference to > >>> mating, and also possibly, just possibly sterilization. > >>> > >>> The image becomes cleverer every second! > >>> > >>> :) > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> Annalisa > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 Mar 28 15:06:51 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:06:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: <20D92530-B24C-4745-9694-AC5D5B48D122@umich.edu>, Message-ID: David, I don't think Trump even wears underpants, and that's a problem. Kind regards, Annalisa From helen.harper@bigpond.com Mon Mar 28 15:17:32 2016 From: helen.harper@bigpond.com (Helen Harper) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 07:47:32 +0930 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Last Post | The Anonymous Revolutionary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <464B7F15-FF5C-4C95-9B5E-50BCEDB62610@bigpond.com> Yes, I came across his writing just recently. Such beautiful work, his political thinking, but also his writing about living in the face of death. So sorry to hear that he has gone already. Thank you for posting. Helen > On 28 Mar 2016, at 11:56 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > http://theanonymousrevolutionary.com/2016/03/27/the-last-post/ > > Hello, did anybody know this little but great son of humanity? > > He died of terminal cancer. > > In his blog, in my views section, he advises, marxists internet archive for > reading. > > I think that marxists.org can include his name in the list of thinkers, > publish his biography, comments, entries. > > He deserves so much! > > Sorrowful, but what is much more important, so beautiful and so truthful, > when he says, among many others, happy 6-7 novembers, long live bolshevism, > that he is a marxist and a leninist...those days... > > He is the author of a book just published. > > Ulvi From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Mar 28 15:34:45 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:34:45 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Imagination;semiotic mediation In-Reply-To: References: <471491D9-2E8F-4729-894C-C0F92134A446@gmail.com> , Message-ID: Hi Mike, Well in the first case, the stop sign is facing me, as if I am in a car on the other side of the intersection. So the stop is for me. In the second case, it is a stop for the police officers in their SUV, who appear just a little bit too close and not looking where they are going. So it does appear the police car is about to overrun the crossing, thereby running the stop sign. And yes, black lives matter, but if we lived in a culture that did not confuse values sanctioning violence in the place of empowerment, then saying black lives matter wouldn't matter, because, indeed, all lives matter. What we must do is try to stop the militarization of police forces, and the terrorism of American citizens by badly trained police. It is my belief that black lives in this country have always been vulnerable, but we are "just" learning of it because: A. The lack of friction in communication and media. B. Police militarization is becoming normalized and the most vulnerable people are the canaries in that coal mine, but we will be next if we don't change these developments. C. We must advocate for lessons in listening and tolerance, and also promote actions of non-violence over violent ones. No matter what. I don't see any other way around it. In fact how would the New Yorker cover read if instead the sign of the cross-guard said LOVE instead of STOP? That would suggest a solution rather than restate the problem. All we need is love. Kind regards, Annalisa From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Mar 28 17:05:43 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:05:43 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Last Post | The Anonymous Revolutionary In-Reply-To: <464B7F15-FF5C-4C95-9B5E-50BCEDB62610@bigpond.com> References: <464B7F15-FF5C-4C95-9B5E-50BCEDB62610@bigpond.com> Message-ID: An amazing site, Ulvi, and clearly a very talented and courageous person. thanks mike On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Helen Harper wrote: > Yes, I came across his writing just recently. Such beautiful work, his > political thinking, but also his writing about living in the face of death. > So sorry to hear that he has gone already. Thank you for posting. > > Helen > > On 28 Mar 2016, at 11:56 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > > http://theanonymousrevolutionary.com/2016/03/27/the-last-post/ > > > > Hello, did anybody know this little but great son of humanity? > > > > He died of terminal cancer. > > > > In his blog, in my views section, he advises, marxists internet archive > for > > reading. > > > > I think that marxists.org can include his name in the list of thinkers, > > publish his biography, comments, entries. > > > > He deserves so much! > > > > Sorrowful, but what is much more important, so beautiful and so truthful, > > when he says, among many others, happy 6-7 novembers, long live > bolshevism, > > that he is a marxist and a leninist...those days... > > > > He is the author of a book just published. > > > > Ulvi > > > -- 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 Mar 28 17:40:30 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:40:30 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Last Post | The Anonymous Revolutionary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56F9CEFE.5060006@mira.net> His writings would be most welcome on marxists.org, Ulvi, all that is required is a volunteer to transcribe them. https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/why-not-writer.htm Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 29/03/2016 1:26 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > http://theanonymousrevolutionary.com/2016/03/27/the-last-post/ > > Hello, did anybody know this little but great son of humanity? > > He died of terminal cancer. > > In his blog, in my views section, he advises, marxists internet archive for > reading. > > I think that marxists.org can include his name in the list of thinkers, > publish his biography, comments, entries. > > He deserves so much! > > Sorrowful, but what is much more important, so beautiful and so truthful, > when he says, among many others, happy 6-7 novembers, long live bolshevism, > that he is a marxist and a leninist...those days... > > He is the author of a book just published. > > Ulvi > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Tue Mar 29 03:13:23 2016 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:13:23 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Last Post | The Anonymous Revolutionary In-Reply-To: <56F9CEFE.5060006@mira.net> References: <56F9CEFE.5060006@mira.net> Message-ID: Thanks Andy. I am sure there will be thousands of teenagers to do this. I will contact his parents and then I will write to you. Ulvi On 29 March 2016 at 03:40, Andy Blunden wrote: > His writings would be most welcome on marxists.org, Ulvi, all that is > required is a volunteer to transcribe them. > https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/why-not-writer.htm > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 29/03/2016 1:26 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > >> http://theanonymousrevolutionary.com/2016/03/27/the-last-post/ >> >> Hello, did anybody know this little but great son of humanity? >> >> He died of terminal cancer. >> >> In his blog, in my views section, he advises, marxists internet archive >> for >> reading. >> >> I think that marxists.org can include his name in the list of thinkers, >> publish his biography, comments, entries. >> >> He deserves so much! >> >> Sorrowful, but what is much more important, so beautiful and so truthful, >> when he says, among many others, happy 6-7 novembers, long live >> bolshevism, >> that he is a marxist and a leninist...those days... >> >> He is the author of a book just published. >> >> Ulvi >> >> > From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Mar 29 14:56:16 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:56:16 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [commfac] Reminder Deadline is Friday, April 1st to Apply or Complete Application for Dept of Communication Lecturer AY2016-2017 In-Reply-To: <7C515C763279BE49B195C473EB2F823BBF6F45F0@HSMBX03-V.AD.UCSD.EDU> References: <7C515C763279BE49B195C473EB2F823BBF6F45F0@HSMBX03-V.AD.UCSD.EDU> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Thomas, Renee* Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 Subject: [commfac] Reminder Deadline is Friday, April 1st to Apply or Complete Application for Dept of Communication Lecturer AY2016-2017 To: "dept@communication.ucsd.edu" *Open Friday, March 11th, 2016 through Friday, April 1st, 2016 Lecturer AY2016-2017* *DESCRIPTION:* The Department of Communication ( http://communication.ucsd.edu/) within the Division of Social Sciences at the University of California, San Diego is seeking to make an appointment at the Lecturer Academic Year (Unit 18-Non-Senate Faculty) level. Candidate's must have a Ph.D. completed by June 2016; and , evidence of strong teaching experience. Responsibilities entail the effective instruction of students; teaching classes in accordance with course objectives and published schedules; advising students on academic matters and; maintaining an active interest in the advances/current thinking in her/his subject area. The Department of Communication at the University of California, San Diego is committed to academic excellence and diversity within the faculty, staff, and student body. Given that commitment, the department is interested in recruiting candidates who are committed to the highest standards of scholarship and professional activity and will make a strong and meaningful contribution to the development of a campus climate that supports equality and diversity. A complete description of the courses for which Lecturers are being sought may be found at: http://communication.ucsd.edu. Candidates must identify the specific course or courses they hope to teach when applying. *Salary* is commensurate with qualifications and based on University of California pay scales. Job Location (La Jolla): San Diego, CA *To Apply:* Submit Applications & Materials On Line: UCSD AP-On-Line-Recruit https://apol-recruit.ucsd.edu/apply/JPF01042 *Required Materials:* 1. Cover Letter (Indicating courses being applied for and teaching experience relevant to course topic. If applying for COMM 146 or COMM 162 also provide proposed course topic and/or subject of "Advanced Studies") 2. CV (Short version relevant university teaching experience, 4 page max) 3. Ph.D. or Expected completion of by June, 2016 ( Provide grad div letter, certificate or transcript.) 4. Teaching Evals(Within last 2 year period) 5. Reference Requirements (3 Contact information only) 6. Statement of Contributions to diversity - Applicants should summarize their past or potential contributions to diversity. See our Faculty Equity site for more information. *Qualification:* Ph.D. and evidence of strong teaching experience. Applicants should summarize their past or *potential contributions to diversity*. For more information: http://facultyexcellence.ucsd.edu/c2d/index.html Learn more information about this recruitment: http://communication.ucsd.edu AA-EOE: The University of California is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age or protected veteran status. Thank you for applying! Ren?e DeLisa Thomas Academic Personnel Specialist Department of Communication #0503 Media Center and Communication Building University of California San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0503 Phone: (858) 534 0234 Fax: (858) 534 7315 rdthomas@ucsd.edu http://communication.ucsd.edu -- 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 Wed Mar 30 12:53:18 2016 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:53:18 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] With Marx and Engels Message-ID: On 29 March 2016 at 13:13, Ulvi ??il wrote: > Thanks Andy. I am sure there will be thousands of teenagers to do this. I > will contact his parents and then I will write to you. > Ulvi > > On 29 March 2016 at 03:40, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> His writings would be most welcome on marxists.org, Ulvi, all that is >> required is a volunteer to transcribe them. >> https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/why-not-writer.htm >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> On 29/03/2016 1:26 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: >> >>> http://theanonymousrevolutionary.com/2016/03/27/the-last-post/ >>> >>> Hello, did anybody know this little but great son of humanity? >>> >>> He died of terminal cancer. >>> >>> In his blog, in my views section, he advises, marxists internet archive >>> for >>> reading. >>> >>> I think that marxists.org can include his name in the list of thinkers, >>> publish his biography, comments, entries. >>> >>> He deserves so much! >>> >>> Sorrowful, but what is much more important, so beautiful and so truthful, >>> when he says, among many others, happy 6-7 novembers, long live >>> bolshevism, >>> that he is a marxist and a leninist...those days... >>> >>> He is the author of a book just published. >>> >>> Ulvi >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: With Marx and Engels.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 98211 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160330/6ed9530b/attachment.jpg From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Thu Mar 31 07:05:28 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:05:28 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Sociology Associate Board CfA Message-ID: Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Sociology Journal Date: 3/31/2016 4:13 AM (GMT-06:00) To: pmocombe@mocombeian.com Subject: Sociology Associate Board CfA Sociology Associate Board Recruitment??We are seeking 17 new members to join the Sociology Associate Board, from mid-July 2016 until 31 July 2019. ?Sociology relies on its peer reviewers to maintain high quality scholarship. Alongside the work of members of the Editorial Board, members of the Associate Board help to ensure that the journal makes a timely and constructive response to article submissions.?The Associate Board is an opportunity for individuals to become involved in the ongoing success of the journal by supporting the process of peer reviewing submissions and ensuring only the highest quality and most important articles are published in the journal.? The Board is made up of 30 scholars who commit themselves to reviewing up to 12 papers a year for the journal.?? There are no face-to-face meetings; this Board is a ?virtual? entity.?Members of the Associate Board must possess either a PhD in sociology (or a related social science discipline). All candidates must have authored at least 3 peer reviewed publications and must possess experience of peer reviewing for at least 2 different social science journals.?Sociology welcomes members from any cultural, national or academic background to contribute to the diversity of research published by the journal. Please see the BSA?s policies on Equality and Diversity: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/the-bsa/equality.aspx ?Application instructions: ?The full call for applications, including criteria for joining the board, can be found on the BSA website at: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/publications/publications-vacancies.aspx ?The online application form is available online at: http://www.uk-engage.org/britsocab ?PLEASE NOTE: Due to the volume of applications the journal receives, we are only able to accept the first 150 applications. The call will close once we receive 150 applications or by Thursday April 14th, should we not receive the maximum number.?If you have queries about the role or about your eligibility please contact UK Engage, who are running the application process on behalf of the BSA, at bsasocab@uk-engage.org ? ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by TSG Cloud Based Mail Security. For more information please visit http://www.tsg.com/product/anti-virus-anti-spam ______________________________________________________________________ From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Thu Mar 31 11:11:37 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:11:37 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Final Call for Papers: Global Studies Association, 15th Annual Conference, Austin TX June 9-11, 2016 Message-ID: Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Carl Davidson Date: 3/31/2016 11:59 AM (GMT-06:00) To: pmocombe@mocombeian.com Subject: Final Call for Papers: Global Studies Association, 15th Annual Conference, Austin TX June 9-11, 2016 The Global Studies Association of North America 15th Annual Conference University of Texas, Austin: June 9 - 11th, 2016 Co-sponsor: International Relations and Global Studies Program CROSSING BORDERS: PEOPLE, CULTURE AND CAPITAL Call for Papers: Accepting papers on all topics that include aspects of global studies. Send 100 word abstracts to: Jerry Harris at gharris234@comcast.net. Deadline May 1st. For more information go to our web site at: http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal Keynote Speakers Dr. Saskia Sassen, Columbia University ?World renown sociologist, Sassen is the Robert S. Lynd Professor of Sociology, and Chair of? The Committee on Global Thought. Her books are translated into over 20 languages. She is the recipient of diverse awards and mentions. Most recently she was awarded the Principe de Asturias 2013 Prize in the Social Sciences, and made a member of the Royal Academy of the Sciences of Netherland. Among her book are: Guest and Aliens; Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy; and Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Dr. David Montejano, UC Berkeley Historian and sociologist Dr. Montejano is Professor of Ethnic Studies. He is former Chair of the Center for Latino Policy Research, and previously Director of the Center for? Mexican Studies at the University of Texas. He is a Resident Scholar of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and recipient of the Frederick Jackson Turner Award. He is author of: Anglos and Mexican in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986; and Chicano Politics and Society in the Late Twentieth Century. Susan Gzesh, University of Chicago Susan Gzesh is Executive Director of the Pozen Family Center for Human Rights at the University of Chicago. She was Director of the Mexico-US Network and co-founded the Regional Network of Civil Organizations for Migration. From 1997-1999 she was the legal advisor to the Mexican Foreign Ministry on US immigration law and policy. More recently Gzesh was appointed to the Illinois New Americans Immigrant Policy Council, and the United Food & Commercial Workers Union Task Force on Investigating Misconduct by Immigration Agents. She has served on the Chicago Council on Global Affair's Task Force on Immigration Policy in the Midwest, and is a Fellow of the Migration Policy Institute in Washington D.C. She is an active member of the Midwest Coalition for Human Rights and the Chicago Committee for Human Rights Watch. Gzesh has also been a member of civil society delegation to the United Nations High Level Dialogue on Migration & Development, and the global Forum on Migration and Development. Dr. Alfonso Gonzales, University of Texas Dr. Gonzales? is an expert in Latino and Latin American politics, migration control, and migrant social movements in the United States, Mexico, and Central America. He is particularly interested in the politics of migration control, which includes policing, asylum, detention, deportation, democracy, human rights, and justice. Dr. Gonzales is a renowned public speaker and has lectured at major universities and conferences in the United States, Mexico, and Spain. ?He is author of: Reform Without Justice: The Homeland Security State and Latino Migrant Politics. From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Mar 31 15:03:55 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 09:03:55 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: With Marx and Engels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: When I read Max's work, I am most struck by how NON-anonymous it really is. Yes, it's about Marx and Engels, and yes, it's about Bolshevism and Leninism, but it's also the feelings of a sixteen year old boy whose experience of the class struggle seems to be mostly reading about it and writing about it. I think the real tragedy is not so much that we have lost a missing link, a desperately needed young mind who could have connected us to future generations of revolutionaries who might have made at least some of this visionary writing into a body of well worked out Marxist ideas. I think the real tragedy is that he lost the chance to see the real class struggle up close, and to learn that his stuff about Putin and the Ukraine is no more relevant to it than his confused thoughts about communists in private jets. It's far richer and far more confusing and above all more real--more wonderful and terrible--than a sixteen year old can really imagine.Maybe that's the sense in which Max's writing is "anonymous" and "revolutionary"--some day, potentially revolutionary for some person who is now anonymous. Not here and not now, and now not for him forever, but still... A reminder of the strength and pain Of being young: it won't come again But is for others undiminished somewhere. When I was Max's age, Obama and I both lived in Hawaii. Obama was going to a ritzy private school called Punahou and I had left school early and was working in a pineapple cannery to make money for college. I never met Obama; I only mention him to drop a much weightier name on you. The cannery where I worked was being organized by the Revolutionary Communist Party of Robert Avakian, which was a Maoist sect locked in a life and death struggle with the Communist Party Marxist Leninist of Mike Klonsky. As part of this struggle, Klonsky brought a middle-aged factory worker called James Veneris to the USA on a speaking tour, and as a young kid fresh to Marxism (and also new to the working class) I went along. Veneris was a "turncoat"--a young working class kid taken prisoner in the Korean war who had decided to switch sides at the end of the war. When you think about it (and I did), what he did was no more than what generations of young Chinese-Americans and Chinese-Australians are doing now: jumping a rather low political obstacle and building a life as an ordinary factory worker on the other side. As a prospective Maoist I was really disappointed that this guy was not a revolutionary at all but just an American-Chinese factory worker, but as a young factory worker I was intrigued. Ten years later, I met him again--I was on my way from Jinan to Beijing to look for work, because I had decided to do what he had done (that was the American-Chinese who wrote "In Search of China", Mike!). He looked at me; there was a flash of recognition of his younger self, but the flash was tinted with more horror than warmth. We both turned away to get on with our lives (I remember thinking that if I really wanted to be like that I would have to marry a Chinese soon, but it was another ten years before I actually did). I suppose the main thing people will remember about Veneris is that he was one of the "traitors" whose defection at the height of the McCarthyite scare led to a kind of obsession by psychologists with brainwashing. The Freudians of the time attributed it to overbearing mothers enabled by fathers absent during WWII and the behaviourists to the careful manipulation of the prisoner's environment and of course it led to a spate of bad movies like "Prisoner of War" (starring Ronald Reagan who was busy driving Charlie Chaplin out of the screen actors guild), "The Manchurian Candidate" and eventually "The Bourne Identity". The truth was much more wonderful and even more cinematic: Jim thought for himself and did what any worker who thinks for himself should do. I just learned, from THIS http://www.nfb.ca/film/they_chose_china/ that Jim died in 2004. David Kellogg Macquarie University I On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > On 29 March 2016 at 13:13, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > Thanks Andy. I am sure there will be thousands of teenagers to do this. I > > will contact his parents and then I will write to you. > > Ulvi > > > > On 29 March 2016 at 03:40, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > >> His writings would be most welcome on marxists.org, Ulvi, all that is > >> required is a volunteer to transcribe them. > >> https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/why-not-writer.htm > >> Andy > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> > >> On 29/03/2016 1:26 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > >> > >>> http://theanonymousrevolutionary.com/2016/03/27/the-last-post/ > >>> > >>> Hello, did anybody know this little but great son of humanity? > >>> > >>> He died of terminal cancer. > >>> > >>> In his blog, in my views section, he advises, marxists internet archive > >>> for > >>> reading. > >>> > >>> I think that marxists.org can include his name in the list of > thinkers, > >>> publish his biography, comments, entries. > >>> > >>> He deserves so much! > >>> > >>> Sorrowful, but what is much more important, so beautiful and so > truthful, > >>> when he says, among many others, happy 6-7 novembers, long live > >>> bolshevism, > >>> that he is a marxist and a leninist...those days... > >>> > >>> He is the author of a book just published. > >>> > >>> Ulvi > >>> > >>> > >> > > > From smago@uga.edu Thu Mar 31 11:18:34 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:18:34 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] JoLLE's New SSO & Take 2 Features! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please use the link below to access the March JoLLE 2016 newsletter on social media: https://www.smore.com/0g4dg March 2016 Scholars Speak Out: In her essay, Bilingualism Endangered: The Status Quo of Linguistic Diversity in the U.S., Dr. Hasko discusses the role of multilingualism and foreign languages in the current political and educational climate. Find the Scholars Speak Out feature here: http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/scholars-speak-out/ March 2016 Take 2 Feature Dr. Mollie Blackburn's article, "(Re)Writing One's Self as an Activist Across Schools and Sexual and Gender Identities: An Investigation of the Limits of LGBT-Inclusive and Queering Discourses," was a result of her serving as the keynote speaker for the JoLLE@UGA 2014 Winter Conference. Her article resonates as powerfully now as it did then, both during her keynote address and in the article's Spring 2014 Issue publication. In this article, Mollie and her participant, Jared, queer what it means to be a LGBT activist through personal and theoretical explorations of teacher and ally identities. Find the Take 2 Feature here: http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/take-2/ From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Mar 31 19:55:27 2016 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 03:55:27 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: With Marx and Engels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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