[Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Wed Mar 23 17:11:49 PDT 2016
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
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> 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/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
> 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
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
> behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu
> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>
> 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
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list