[Xmca-l] Re: Why Doesn't Vygotsky Use "Microgenesis"?

[lpscholar2@gmail.com]

David,
You interpret Mike as offering to explore Franklin existing within a zoped that may be a way of entangling or intertwining with Zaza’s prototyping thread. Each may have something to say focusing on *learning* *development* and generating *meaning*.

You focused on what do persons do when their higher mental functions begin to break down (is the blocks corner of Vivian’s classroom an example IF democractic spirit breaks down?) the setting or situation is not as *developed* and is more free form requiring difeerent developmental *capacity* and *styles* (Vivian’s terms for character formation).

David, your invitation to entangle and intertwine these two threads is inviting an opening and I am curious if others will meet you in this place which Mike was gesturing toward. 
Still wandering and wondering with others 


Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: David Kellogg
Sent: October 18, 2016 1:17 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why Doesn't Vygotsky Use "Microgenesis"?

Mike likes a discussion to be, as Bernstein put it, well framed and well
classified; or at least he likes the threads to be well disentangled and
properly subject lined. But perhaps we shouldn't give up on the "The
Prototyping Mind" too quickly! As you can see from Molly's careful perusal
and forceful restatement of Zaza's major themes, there is still a lot in
Zaza's prototyping bin to talk about.

The one that interests me, that I think is relevant to the "microgenesis"
thread, is what learning means when it means adapting to anti-development.
For example, there are undoubtedly work-arounds that people use when their
higher psychological functions start to shut down (I watched my mother do
quite a few of these, addressing everyone as "you" instead of using names,
reacting to novel situations with a delight which effectively hides her
astonishment, and above all refraining from trying to understand the
reasons for present situations).

Similarly, there are ontogenetic work-arounds that people use when
commodity production shuts down. But in both cases, we have a kind of
development which forgoes time's arrow; we have a notion of development
that works backwards and forwards (like the laws of physics as opposed to
the laws of thermodynamics). I won't say that suggests relativism (that
would be, I think, too moralistic an argument, and it is a rabbit hole we
have been down already anyway). But it suggests an atomism that I disagree
with (in addition to eschewing time, the laws of physics don't combine
matter and meaning the way that the laws of thermodynamics do!)

Mike has offered Franklin as an example of a Zoped before (I remember once
thinking that he directed it to ME as a way of getting ME to think a bit
about listening to others on this list, but in fact he's used it in print
on at least one occasion). Whenever he offers it, he does the exact
opposite of what he usually does with xmca threads: instead of asking us to
disentangle threads, he invites us to combine them. Franklin is learning
(to listen to others). But he is also developing, on at least three counts:
by learning to listen to others, he is acquiring new forms of meaning
potential; by learning to recognize himself when it is "played back" to
him, he is acquiring a new form of reflecting on experience; and (this is
the one I really want to talk about) he is learning that play is not simply
the manipulation of objects but also the manipulation of social roles
according to abstract rules (such as reciprocity and mutuality).

Now, you can see that I'm trying to disentangle things that are not really
that distinct (reciprocity is really a form of serial mutuality, and both
of them are simply abstract forms of listening to others). The Vygotsky
lectures I'm working with are a little similar: in his work on the Crisis
at Three (Franklin's Crisis, I suspect), he is trying to disentangle the
"seven stars" of bad behaviour (folk concepts that nursemaids and mothers
use--I notice there is even a Russian Wikipedia page!) from what he thinks
is the key neoformation of Three, the separation of affect and will.

For example, negativism is not just saying "no". It's saying "no" when the
child really wants to say "yes", because although the child wants to say
"yes", the others in the social milieu also want him to say "yes", and the
child is more interested in self-assertion than in self-gratification.
Obstinacy is not just tenacity. It's actually the negation of negativism:
saying "yes" when the child really wants to "no", or maybe "who cares?",
simply because the child has already said "yes" and once again the child is
more interested in will than in affect. And so on.

How is this connected with the next zone of development? Perhaps the next
zone of development is preschool, and preschool depends on the separation
of the semantic and the visio-graphic field of action in play. If so,
Franklin's ability to interpret the teacher's imitation of his own actions
is a "trailer" of that next zone of development and no mere act of
learning.  Or, maybe this is happening in a preschool, and the next zone of
development is actually the Crisis at Seven. If so, Franklin's ability to
recognize himself is a "trailer" of the next zone of development: acting a
role that is not really a role, but in fact a prototype self.

But that's my problem, Molly. What do I do when the prototype self comes to
me from the past and not the future? Can we really call this development?
Isn't it really a form of pathogenesis?

David Kellogg
Macquarie University




On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:29 AM, molly shea <mvshea@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Zaza and Mike,
>
> My apologies for entering the conversation on Kukiya-kiya late, however,
> the article was so compelling I feel I should still enter. First, to Zaza,
> thank you for writing such a forceful analysis of learning through
> prototyping. I especially like the ways in which your analytical lens
> included the political dimensions of problem solving and invoking
> expertise. There are two ideas within the article that I hope to use and
> extend in my work as well, and a question for Zaza, Mike, and others at the
> end of my second musing.
>
> The first is your discussion of disinheritance as *an attention to
> materials—a way of looking at materials that allows the beholder to
> recognize transience, mutability, intermediateness—that allows Zimbabweans
> to employ novel and unexpected ways to act within and around the
> constraints of their material conditions.* By pointing out the separate
> cognitive practice associated with seeing through disinheritance, the
> analysis draws attention to the political dimension of learning. The
> possible activities and therefore learning opportunities that arise through
> this historical perception change and assumptions about designing learning
> environments then shifts with these methods of seeing and using materials.
> It also draws another potential distinction between the Maker Movement and
> Kukiya—kiya. The Makers Movement doesn’t necessarily claim a political
> agenda, however, by claiming something a-political or claiming an agenda of
> advancing technological skills in the name of progress, it has a historical
> and political situated set of values that may be in opposition to those of
> Kukiya—kiya that suffer the consequences of material disinheritance arising
> in the context of economic crisis. Vossoughi, Hooper, and Escudé (2016) do
> a wonderful job of pointing out many of the neoliberal consequences of a
> maker movement that does not see the lineage of prototyping expertise
> coming from many low-income communities living in “tight circumstances”.
> The power of the design of this prototyping project, for me, comes from
> centering local expertise in the design of the learning environment.
> Although prototyping is at the center of both “making” and “kukiya—kiya”
> practices, it seems the political sense making between settings couldn’t be
> more different. Even within the Zaza paper, the participants question how
> invention might or might not lead to liberation. I appreciate Zaza's
> attention to how participants questioned invention and business acumen as a
> means to “extricate Zimbabwe from its economic quandary”. A lesser
> researcher may have ignored this comment as outside of the design process
> and therefore the data set to be analyzed.
>
> The second idea, related to the political dimensions of cognition that are
> often overlooked, is your analysis of gender and expertise in the design
> process. I am struck by how the performance of gender and design-expertise
> came in the form of whispers and informal conversations about hand-bags. It
> would be great to have more analysis like this one where gender networks
> inform design. In fact, it seems gender (man/woman/trans/other) is always
> informing design, but perhaps performance of expertise that is cis-male is
> sometimes confused with having expertise at all. You analysis offers more
> nuance about other kinds of performance of expertise. I wonder if
> discussions about hand-bags creates the intimacy necessary to share
> female-cis gendered understandings of design problems. I would love to hear
> your thinking on this matter.
>
> Again, thank you for your work and for the insights that this article has
> provided me.
>
> - Molly Shea
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:46 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > ​Since it appears that people have completed discussion of Zaza's paper
> > (and of course, anyone is free to add to the discussion at any time), I
> > feel freer to engage the microgenesis/ontogenesis relationship.
> >
> > I know too little about L1/L2 discussions to contribute there, but as
> life
> > allows I will try to suggest that microgenesis can be shown, in at least
> > some circumstances, to involve both learning and development.
> >
> > So I attach an example from the work of Vivian Paley. It addresses (I
> > believe) Vygotsky's idea that play creates a Zoped in which a child is "a
> > head taller than herself."
> >
> > Perhaps the example is inappropriate to the discussion or my
> interpretation
> > of it is bonkers. To me it illustrates both LSV's claim about the zoped
> and
> > play and is a case of microgenesis with ontogenetic implications.
> >
> > See what you think. its 4 pages long.
> > mike
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Arturo:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I think the only word I might
> > > possibly disagree with is "unfortunately". I suppose there may also be
> a
> > > "zone of proximal learning", just as there is a zone of proximal
> > evolution
> > > (I suspect, given the mass extinctions which are going on in the
> > > Anthropocene, that we are in one of these at present), and a zone of
> > > proximal social progress (these have turned out to be far longer than I
> > > ever thought as a young person). But I think for now it's a very good
> > idea
> > > to focus on the D in ZPD, and not to forget that it's for "development"
> > and
> > > not for learning.
> > >
> > > Let me give three reasons. First of all, if we are interested in the
> what
> > > word value looks like when we remove the sound that realizes it, we are
> > > necessarily interested in a psychological rather than an interpersonal
> > > phenomenon. Secondly, the focus on quick results in learning very often
> > > ends up victimizing teachers for problems in development that have
> > nothing
> > > to do with teaching methods and are really developmentally rooted.
> > Thirdly,
> > > just as we need to understand exactly what teachers are doing before we
> > go
> > > about introducing interested changes, we also need to understand what
> > > Vygotsky was trying to do before we decide it is irrelevant to our
> > teaching
> > > needs.
> > >
> > > This morning I was working on the beginning of the "Crisis at Three",
> > part
> > > of which (but not the good part) can be read in Vol. Five of the
> > Collected
> > > Works in English (Vol. Four in Russian):
> > >
> > > Во-первых, мы должны предположить, что все перемены, все события,
> > > совершающиеся в период этого кризиса, группируются вокруг какого-либо
> > > новообразования переходного типа. Следовательно, когда мы будем
> > > анализировать симптомы кризиса, мы должны хотя бы предположительно
> > ответить
> > > на вопрос, что нового возникает в указанное время и какова судьба
> > > новообразования, которое исчезает после него. Затем мы должны
> > рассмотреть,
> > > какая смена центральных и побочных линий развития здесь происходит. И
> > > наконец, оценить критический возраст с точки зрения зоны его ближайшего
> > > развития, т. е. отношения к следующему возрасту.
> > > "Firstly, we must presume that all of the transformations, all the
> > > happenings, that take place during the period of the crisis may be
> > grouped
> > > around some sort of neoformation of the transitional type.
> Consequently,
> > > when we analyse the symptoms of the crisis, we must at the very least
> > > presume to answer the question of what newness emerges at this
> appointed
> > > time and what the fate of these neoformations which disappear
> afterwards
> > > might be. Next, we should consider how the central and peripheral lines
> > of
> > > development here will unfold. And lastly, we ought to evaluate the
> > critical
> > > age from the point of view of the zone of its proximal development,
> i.e.
> > > its relationship to the subsequent age."
> > >
> > >
> > > "The zone of its proximal development" is its relationship to the
> > > subsequent age! Almost by definition, if you present some
> > > pedagogical intervention and it immediately becomes part of the child's
> > > psychological system, you are looking at the zone of actual
> development,
> > > and not the zone of proximal development at all.
> > >
> > > Years ago, I told Mike that I kept mixing up microgenesis and learning.
> > He
> > > told me "Don't do that!" but he didn't exactly spell out how to avoid
> it:
> > > instead, he arranged for me to review a book on Ganzheitpsychologie
> that
> > > left me more confused than ever. So I think that's still what we need
> to
> > do
> > > now: but one way to start is simply to kick learning out of the ZPD.
> > >
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > >
> > > Macquarie University
> > > .
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Arturo Escandon <
> > > arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you for this David.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with what you are saying at many levels.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, the kind of assessment I introduced did not have
> > > > significant learning components. So the evaluation part of the
> > > > assessment is not giving me much data about microgenesis but about
> > > > ontogenesis. The "outcome" is not the result of the learning
> component
> > > > for sure.
> > > >
> > > > My bet is that the links between L1 and L2 (which allow students to
> go
> > > > beyond sound perception of words) are possible because of development
> > > > in high school. More to do with L1 development. Again, the kind of
> > > > interventions I am allowed to make in the classroom are very narrow
> > > > and the structure and shape of the study programme prevents me from
> > > > doing large longitudinal studies.
> > > >
> > > > I agree the notion of DA as it is used in the SLA literature presents
> > > > many problems.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Arturo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11 October 2016 at 05:17, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Arturo:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dynamic assessment is a really good example of what I'm talking
> > about.
> > > > > Dynamic assessment is supposedly based on the ZPD. But I think
> there
> > > are
> > > > > three linked ways in which it is actually based on a distortion of
> > the
> > > > ZPD.
> > > > >
> > > > > a) Dynamic assessment looks at microgenesis, not ontogenesis. I
> think
> > > the
> > > > > idea was originally that the microgenetic perturbations that were
> > > picked
> > > > up
> > > > > in DA were, actually, predictive of the "next zone of development".
> > But
> > > > > there are two reasons why this has not happened. Firstly, there
> > hasn't
> > > > been
> > > > > a clear demarcation between learning and development, and the idea
> > > > > that what the child can do today with assistance will be done by
> the
> > > > child
> > > > > independently tomorrow--literally, in twenty-four hours--is just
> too
> > > > > attractive to people like Matt Poehner and Jim Lantolf. Secondly,
> > there
> > > > > hasn't been a clear scheme for figuring out what the next zone of
> > > > > development really is (it's there in Vygotsky's pedological
> lectures,
> > > but
> > > > > these haven't been translated yet).
> > > > >
> > > > > b) Dynamic assessment is "dynamic" and not diagnostic. It's
> > interesting
> > > > to
> > > > > compare the two Russian versions of Vygotsky's pedological
> lectures:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/pedologia/
> > > > lektsii-po-pedologii.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/cw/pdf/vol4.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > Compare 2001: 191 with 1984: 260 (and also the English version,
> 1998:
> > > > > 199!). It's not just that the Russian editors insist on replacing
> > > "test"
> > > > > with "task"--it's that they consistently replace "diagnostic" with
> > > > > "dynamic", even where this leads to redundant headings and total
> > > > nonsense.
> > > > > Why? Well, because in the Soviet scheme of things, the ZPD is NOT
> > > > > diagnostic: it's dynamic. That means that a personality is
> infinitely
> > > > > malleable and tomorrow's development, with the right kind of
> > mediation,
> > > > can
> > > > > become today's. This is something that DA has largely adopted from
> > its
> > > > > Soviet roots....but it's not Vygotsky.
> > > > >
> > > > > c) As a result DA has to reject the core of Vygotsky's method: for
> > > > > Vygotsky, structure is to be explained by function, but function
> MUST
> > > be
> > > > > explained by history, by development. Suppose I have two children.
> > One
> > > > > learns, the other doesn't. The structural explanation is simply
> that
> > > the
> > > > > first one has the right mental structures to learn and the second
> > does
> > > > not.
> > > > > The functional explanation is that the first has the right
> functional
> > > > > motivation (putative career, middle class aspirations, etc) while
> the
> > > > other
> > > > > does not. But the sad truth is that the vast majority of learning
> > > > > difficulties really are developmental. I don't think that means
> that
> > > they
> > > > > are destiny. But I do think it means that prevention is a whole lot
> > > > easier
> > > > > than cure. In DA, development is Markovian: the present and the
> > future
> > > > are
> > > > > linked causally--but not the past and the present: it's a weird
> > > inversion
> > > > > of Aristotle's belief that the past was determined but the future
> is
> > > > > intrinsically non-determinable.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > Macquarie University
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Arturo Escandon <
> > > > arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> David,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In my research about dynamic assessment I have been able to spot a
> > > > >> moment students reorganise L1 and L2 concepts (related to
> urbanistic
> > > > >> and architectural city features) in such a way that they no longer
> > > > >> "perceive" the sounds of words. Students who do not arrive to that
> > > > >> reorganisation are not able to escape from the perceptual
> challenge
> > of
> > > > >> oral utterances.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The first group of students tend to mediate their linguistic
> > > > >> production either in ideograms or Spanish-alphabet written words
> > when
> > > > >> asked to take notes. The second group tend to use the Japanese
> > > > >> syllabic system to transliterate sounds.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Arturo Escandón
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 9 October 2016 at 07:21, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > When I read materials on Vygotsky, particularly in applied
> > > > linguistics or
> > > > >> > TESOL, I always get the "four timescales" (phylogenetic,
> > > sociogenetic,
> > > > >> > ontogenetic, and microgenetic) from Mescharyakov's wonderful
> > article
> > > > on
> > > > >> > Vygotsky's terminology. At first, in the vain hope that it would
> > > help
> > > > us
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > distinguish better between ontogenetic development and
> > microgenetic
> > > > >> > learning, I used this myself (see Song and Kellogg 2011).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Now I think that was a mistake. The term "microgenesis" was
> around
> > > > when
> > > > >> > Vygotsky was alive and he certainly knew about it: it's a
> constant
> > > > >> feature
> > > > >> > of Gestaltist studies of perception. It's also strongly
> associated
> > > > with
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > Nazi psychology of Leipzig. Vygotsky knows about the term and
> > > doesn't
> > > > use
> > > > >> > it, and I think he's got good reasons.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Even where LSV agrees with the Gestaltists (Kohler, Koffka,
> Lewin,
> > > > >> > Wertheimer, Selz--they weren't all Nazis!) he doesn't seem to
> use
> > > the
> > > > >> term
> > > > >> > microgenesis. And actually, he's quite interested in Nazi
> > psychology
> > > > and
> > > > >> > not afraid to quote it, although he bitterly, scathingly,
> > denounces
> > > > >> > Jaensch, Krueger, Ach, Kroh and others in "Fascism in
> > > > Psychoneurology". I
> > > > >> > think he doesn't use "microgenesis" because it conflates
> external
> > > > >> > perception with perceiving meaning.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Halliday, who also uses "phylogenetic" and "ontogenetic", calls
> > his
> > > > >> "micro"
> > > > >> > scale logogenesis: the creation of semantics (as opposed to
> > > > biological,
> > > > >> > social, or psychological semiosis). Take Zaza's article. At a
> > > > particular
> > > > >> > point, the participants become uninterested in perceptual high
> > > > fidelity
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > much more interested in meaning--what will Gogo think if she
> sees
> > > that
> > > > >> her
> > > > >> > daughter-in-law is using mechanical means for nursing?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Of course, semantic meaning is always linked to perceptual
> > meaning.
> > > > But
> > > > >> > "linked" never means equal or mutual or fully reciprocal: the
> > > specific
> > > > >> > weight is first on one side and then on the other. Microgenesis
> is
> > > > what
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> > get in eye tests, and logogenesis is what you get when you are
> > > reading
> > > > >> > Zaza's article (and when you are reading this post).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > David Kellogg
> > > > >> > Macquarie University
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> object
> > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> >
>