[Xmca-l] Re: Fate of a Man

Mon Feb 6 10:33:07 PST 2017

That is a great quote from Vasilyuk, thank you Andy, and I agree, Chris,
definitely some perezhivanie could come after the film Manchester ... but
we don't see if it will or not.  Beth

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Your post is so rich, Beth, .... Fedor Vasilyuk says, on the topic of
> psychotherapy practice, that the very first thing a patient says when you
> meet 'em should be what you work with.
>
> Unfortunately, the DVD of "Manchester" is not released here till February
> 21. I'll certainly be watching it then though.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
> On 6/02/2017 3:02 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote:
>
>> Beth, I really like your point at the beginning about how interruptions
>> can
>> help us understand perezhivanie. Perhaps you were only referring to
>> specific kinds of interruptions (politics and children), but I am also
>> reminded of the way that many stories and films are periodically
>> "interrupted," as we return to the outer frame of the narrator and his
>> listener who briefly pause to reflect on the story-in-progress before
>> plunging back in. Notably, in Fate of a Man this does *not* happen; the
>> outer narrative only bookends the main story at beginning and end.
>>
>> This was a very rich post, and I suspect that everyone will be picking it
>> apart for quite some time. But two very quick thoughts. You write: "I
>> think
>> perezhivanie is about truth, somehow, although I am not sure how." Later:
>> "we won't understand this process until we see children as full people.
>> And
>> simultaneously as children." (Unlike, for instance, in Fate of a Man.)
>> Perhaps the relevance of truth to perezhivanie has something to do with
>> the
>> fact that people cannot genuinely co-create something in the sense of
>> playmakers if one is deceiving the other? If the adult deliberately
>> misleads the child for his own welfare (as in Life Is Beautiful), however
>> ethical, there is a hierarchical relationship implied which would appear
>> to
>> be at odds with the spirit of shared perezhivanie.
>>
>> Second, re. Manchester By the Sea: I wonder if an alternate reading might
>> be that perezhivanie *is* possible, but it has only barely started by the
>> movie's end. I see any potential perezhivanie occurring not with the
>> ex-wife, but with the teenager. Might the intimate way that they bicker
>> and
>> argue, and develop a distinctive rapport, have anything to do with this?
>> The teenager seems to be teaching Casey Affleck something no one else can
>> tell him....I'm not sure.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Sunday, February 5, 2017, Beth Ferholt <bferholt@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bferholt@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the calling out to Monica and me, Mike and Andy -- I had to
>>> stop
>>> checking XMCA for a couple of weeks so I did not see the discussion or
>>> your
>>> notes to me in the chain, until today.  One of the the strengths of XMCA
>>> is
>>> that it creates a conversation that can include people who can not always
>>> respond that very day, or even week, due to various forms of
>>> interruption!
>>> Often these "interruptions" are children or political events, which can
>>> help us to understand perezhivanie.
>>>
>>> As well as spending time at JFK, recently, many of us here in New York
>>> have
>>> been attending local protests to keep our neighborhoods feeling safe for
>>> everyone.  I live in a neighborhood in Brooklyn that includes several
>>> Muslim communities and several Jewish communities (as well as a few
>>> Russian
>>> and Polish communities), and at the local protests these past few weeks
>>> some people have had photographs of their family members who were killed
>>> by
>>> the Nazis attached to the back of their "never again" signs. Also we all,
>>> Muslim, Jewish, etc. families, have been often bringing  our children to
>>> the protests.
>>>
>>> So I have been thinking a lot about children and hope, during the past
>>> few
>>> weeks.  It is within this frame that I saw this film.  I think the film
>>> was
>>> expecting us to see the child as only benefitting from the main
>>> character's
>>> lying, saying that he was the child's father, and of course the child did
>>> benefit, but I think that perezhivanie is about truth, somehow, although
>>> I
>>> am not sure how.
>>>
>>> My second thought is that Manchester by the Sea must have been
>>> referencing
>>> this film, with its return-to-the-space-where-the-house-was scene, and
>>> also
>>> with the choice to replace the lost self (as father) / family or no.  I
>>> think it might help this conversation if we all saw both films, actually.
>>> Two thoughts on this methods suggestion for our conversation, before I
>>> return to the topic itself.
>>>
>>> 1) It is odd how closely the two films are related, as I did not know
>>> that
>>> the two films were related when I told Chris to see Manchester by the Sea
>>> in relation to thinking about perezhivanie.  I told Chris when I saw him
>>> in
>>> person, and I think that discussions about perezhivanie are often
>>> different
>>> in person.  We learned at LCHC in the 2004/5 playworld projects that
>>> these
>>> in person discussions about perezhivanie have a pronounced proleptic
>>> structure, mirroring the topic of study, such that the conclusion of the
>>> discussion appears at the start: It feels like magic is happening.  (I
>>> think this has something to do with how good teachers see the things in
>>> their classroom that are useful or no before they happen or "behind their
>>> heads" ... when you are very present you have this "sixth sense," which
>>> is
>>> really an experience of time moving in two directions at once ... being
>>> very present can often require a lot of in person time and being with
>>> children speeds up the process.)
>>>
>>> 2) It is a strength that the XMCA conversations can continue through all
>>> of
>>> our different schedules.  It is a negative that they are not in person,
>>> and
>>> seeing films together can really help.  This is where we went on the
>>> perezhivanie facebook page when it was briefly in English and in Russian
>>> --
>>> with a film, and it was very helpful.  (Of course I am thinking of this
>>> while considering the changing role and form of LCHC and Mike's
>>> participation in LCHC and XMCA.  I am thinking of the mistakes that are
>>> communication.  A story about this that I thought of recently, which
>>> shows
>>> this point well, and seems worth retelling BECAUSE when studying
>>> perezhivanie the form is often (always??) the study of the content: As a
>>> newish graduate student Mike once said "thank you" to me when I made a
>>> comment in the afternoon about an AM conversation that day.  Mike's
>>> "thank
>>> you" encouraged me to pay extra attention to this comment/thought of
>>> mine,
>>> which later became important in our analysis of a difficult-to-decipher
>>> playworld event.  I was thinking of this event as I walked and talked
>>> with
>>> a doctoral student of my own -- I seem to have a heavily spacial memory
>>> process and my student and I were walking through a doorway -- and I
>>> suddenly realized that Mike could have been thanking me for holding the
>>> door for him at this time in the past when his feedback was so important
>>> to
>>> me ... maybe he did not hear my comment, but just thanked me for holding
>>> the door ... in fact it now appears to me that this was probably the
>>> case!)
>>>
>>> The interesting thing to me about the above 2 points is the framing.  It
>>> IS
>>> the "()" within the "()" that interests me. Maybe Framing is all
>>> communication or all thought or consciousness ... Bateson? ... but I
>>> think
>>> we need to tackle framing head on when discussing perezhivanie.  The two
>>> films are very different in regards to framing, I think this is why they
>>> are most interesting to think about together, but first I have two
>>> citations for thinking about time that I use frequently in my writing on
>>> perezhivanie.
>>>
>>> These seem worth repeating here, as this thinking about time in
>>> space/time
>>> seems to me to be thinking about framing ... the "()" makes us double
>>> back
>>> in time as we read -- :
>>>
>>> (As to Performance, Alfredo copied the Schechner quote above.)
>>>
>>> Dewey's relation of the notion of object to prolepsis (on XMCA):
>>> Mike (2007) used the term “temporally double sided” to describe this
>>> phenomenon of growing back and towards the future and the past
>>> simultaneously.
>>>
>>> What I am (still) thinking about, now, most often:
>>> It is the juxtaposition of temporal double sidedness with stages that
>>> creates perezhivanie. What Schechner argues is that this juxtaposition
>>> provides the rhythm that allows us to raise ourselves up and hover,
>>> suspended momentarily in a state of being simultaneously ourselves and
>>> not
>>> ourselves: our past and future selves (someone else).
>>>
>>> So my first point is about framing and my second is about children.  The
>>> Fate Of Man is all about the frames / "()". The stories are nested within
>>> eachother, repeating themselves, maybe even sort of like a fractal, or
>>> anyhow a spiral?  I have some congenital prosopagnosia, getting worse as
>>> I
>>> age and definitely bad with a film like this.  I kept thinking we were
>>> back
>>> at the ferry as the form of the conversation and context images repeated
>>> themselves, as I could not recognize the face of the character who was
>>> the
>>> audience for our hero's story!  Manchester by the Sea, on the other hand,
>>> had no frames.  We just jumped right in and rode it through. I only saw
>>> Manchester once but do others think this is true? relevant?
>>>
>>> I think that the question of children's position in relation to adult
>>> perezhivanie is central in both of these films. The children in both of
>>> these films appear to want the main characters to try again at being
>>> fathers.  This is a critique of films about children -- I can not think
>>> of
>>> the name of the person who made this critique, but I can find it for
>>> anyone
>>> if needed -- : We adults often make films not about children but about
>>> our
>>> own childhoods.  We make films about children who are no longer with us.
>>> But is this really best for the films, as films are usually best when
>>> they
>>> are somehow in dialogue with their topic, this is a characteristic of the
>>> medium, no?
>>>
>>> If you do not have some pretense, some playing again, you can not have
>>> perezhivanie.  But I think that Fate of Man is not about perezhivanie,
>>> although in a different way than Manchester by the Sea is not about
>>> perezhivanie.  In Manchester by the Sea there is no other with whom to
>>> perezhivanie because the main character and his former wife still love
>>> each
>>> other, or at lease he still loves her and she returns enough of the love
>>> to
>>> keep him loving her, and neither of them can pull the other up because
>>> they
>>> both hit bottom together and in the same story.  In Fate of Man there is
>>> is
>>> no chance for perezhivanie because the other needs to be involved in some
>>> honest way, or there is no dialogue.
>>>
>>> In Fate of Man the hero seems to me to be playing out his memory in the
>>> real world.  A child is not an other with whom one can ever perezhivanie.
>>> This is not perezhivanie as there is no real world as a player, and this
>>> is
>>> why our hero's heart will fail him.  He did not reach bottom and then
>>> start
>>> to pull himself up by connecting with another with great bravery.
>>> Instead,
>>> as he says himself, he just snapped -- he is now living in a dream.
>>>
>>> As Larry put it, above in this chain: "In other words, navigating through
>>> the suffering and existential emptiness is not a hero’s journey." And
>>> this
>>> point is relevant, again, to our method for studying perezhivanie.  I
>>> don't
>>> think we can manage this one on our own (XMCA), even as a group that
>>> allows
>>> for conversations over extended time periods.
>>>
>>> If form and content are related in this process, I'd say that we won't
>>> understand this process until we see children as full people.  And
>>> simultaneously as children.  Children have something to tell us about
>>> this
>>> process that no one else can tell us, and they are not going to tell us
>>> this in a way that those of us who are researchers/scholars can listen,
>>> without the bridge of the teacher voices.  How to include these voices in
>>> our research is key.  And the answer has something to do with art, as
>>> well
>>> as with time and space.
>>>
>>> I am going to send this as it is long enough already, and then catch up
>>> with the related chains after I do ... And I won't say more now, but I
>>> agree with all the people who thought this was a great pick to start the
>>> discussion.  Many levels to discuss and I also found many aspects of the
>>> film related to perezhivanie in many ways! Beth
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about a documentary movie about the first Trump voter who dies as a
>>>> result of repeal of Obama Care? That would be a perezhivanie within a
>>>> perezhivanie!
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>>>> On 21/01/2017 12:03 PM, Helena Worthen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am late to this discussion, but I have been paying attention. I was
>>>>> reluctant to expose myself to the emotional challenges of the film. I
>>>>>
>>>> knew
>>>
>>>> that between the majestic music, the stunning black and white images,
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>
>>>> beautiful human faces and bodies (and some very ugly ones), and the
>>>>>
>>>> twists
>>>
>>>> of the story, I was going to be deeply moved. However, I have been
>>>>>
>>>> reading
>>>
>>>> two books by Svetlana Alexievich -- Voices from Chernobyl and Secondhand
>>>>> Time - which tell equally heartbreaking, horrifying stories of
>>>>>
>>>> suffering.
>>>
>>>> Reading her work inclines me to place the film in the context of the
>>>>>
>>>> period
>>>
>>>> of deStalinization after Kruschev's 1956 speech to the 20th Congress of
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>
>>>> CPSU, which gave the signal that it was permissible to begin to talk
>>>>>
>>>> freely
>>>
>>>> about Soviet history. It was a period of trying to build a story that
>>>>>
>>>> could
>>>
>>>> explain and honor, if not justify, the extreme suffering of the Soviet
>>>>> people. This film seems to me to set out to accomplish that. So does
>>>>> Alexievich's book, which is a compilation of interviews done between
>>>>>
>>>> 1991
>>>
>>>> and 2012, with people who had something to say (good and bad) about the
>>>>> Soviet regime and the experience of its dissolution. She got the 2015
>>>>>
>>>> Nobel
>>>
>>>> Prize for this book.  And I sense that Andy, or someone, is anticipating
>>>>> that the US is going to have to produce some works of scholarship or
>>>>>
>>>> art,
>>>
>>>> or both, that attempt to explain what is happening now here in the US --
>>>>> for example, this afternoon, under President Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> Helena Worthen
>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>>>> Vietnam blog: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> For some reason I couldn't see the subtitles showing up in Fate of a
>>>>> Man
>>>>>
>>>>>> the first time, so I started to watch it dubbed in English instead.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> mannered Hollywood accents definitely were not exactly helping to
>>>>>>
>>>>> convey
>>>
>>>> the "real Russian soul" Robbins talks about! It felt like I was being
>>>>>> asked
>>>>>> to imagine Cary Grant inhabiting Andrei's perezhivanie-ing body. So, I
>>>>>> started over with the subtitled version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are some quick initial reflections: wonderful movie, and in
>>>>>> Andrei
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> of the more memorable characters I have seen. But I also found myself
>>>>>> thinking how big a difference there is between watching a film on my
>>>>>> 12-inch laptop with headphones (my only option at the moment), and
>>>>>> sitting
>>>>>> back and immersing yourself in a darkened theater or at least on a
>>>>>> widescreen TV without any other distractions, allowing ourselves to
>>>>>>
>>>>> "fall
>>>
>>>> into this space" by virtue of our very awareness of the illusion
>>>>>> generated
>>>>>> by the frame, as Beth and Monica put it. This difference becomes even
>>>>>> bigger if the screen you're viewing it on also enables you to quickly
>>>>>> check
>>>>>> email from time to time during the movie, as many people do these
>>>>>> days.
>>>>>> If
>>>>>> we are to consider the film experience as a model (analogy?) for
>>>>>> perezhivanie or even a certain kind of simulation of it, this effect
>>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>
>>>> occurs when we lose ourselves in a film would be undermined by an
>>>>>> especially small frame or poor viewing conditions. At what point does
>>>>>> "the
>>>>>> knowledge that the movement we experience is just an illusion" (p. 2
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> their article) undermine the perezhivanie-like quality of film as
>>>>>>
>>>>> opposed
>>>
>>>> to forming an integral part of it? And, might the way distraction
>>>>>> functions
>>>>>> to undermine perezhivanie in the context of film in any way mirror how
>>>>>>
>>>>> we
>>>
>>>> "distract" ourselves in the course of living lives from conscious
>>>>>> engagement with the perezhivanie we are otherwise undergoing? Is
>>>>>>
>>>>> viewing
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>>> film on a 12-inch screen while checking email and calling it an
>>>>>> "experience" in any way analogous to the self-deceptions and escapes
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> engage in during the course of either experience-as-struggle or
>>>>>> experience-as-contemplation? I did not check email while watching Fate
>>>>>> of a
>>>>>> Man, by the way. Just in case you're wondering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the film itself: I was struck by the incidental way in which
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> earlier loss of his childhood family is introduced and acknowledged at
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> very outset, and how this contrasts with the dramatic ongoing
>>>>>> perezhivanie
>>>>>> that ensues going forward: it is as if this early loss is "taken for
>>>>>> granted" as also part of the Russian experience.  We are not privy to
>>>>>>
>>>>> any
>>>
>>>> perezhivanie he might have presumably undergone before that point; it
>>>>>>
>>>>> is
>>>
>>>> simply not "within the frame." At several points, I was reminded of
>>>>>> Satyajit's World of Apu (last movie in his trilogy), where there was
>>>>>> also a
>>>>>> set of early losses and a relationship formed with a "son." Have any
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> seen it? I think it would also be a good example of perezhivanie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would not want to overemphasize the use of literary motifs, since
>>>>>> Bondarchuk was presumably not making any references to the concept of
>>>>>> perezhivanie as such. But there were several devices that evoked Beth
>>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>
>>>> Monica's passage from To The Lighthouse ("Time stand still here"), and
>>>>>> their metaphor of a life (or more specifically, a perezhivanie within
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> life) spiraling back over itself to bring two disparate moments into
>>>>>> juxtaposition in a way such that "your life becomes three-dimensional
>>>>>> again" (p. 2). One occurs in the various scenes when Andrei gazes up
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> sky in reverie and all we see are clouds, or the scene where he lies
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> grass after his first escape and the camera pans back as it becomes
>>>>>>
>>>>> very
>>>
>>>> quiet, leaving nothing but him swallowed up in the vastness of nature.
>>>>>> There is a certain timeless quality to these scenes, a sense that he
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> momentarily transcending the linear temporal flow of his life as he
>>>>>> either
>>>>>> stands outside it and "stands still" in it. It could be a thousand
>>>>>>
>>>>> years
>>>
>>>> passing by in those clouds, or just the 17 years of his second phase;
>>>>>>
>>>>> it
>>>
>>>> suddenly doesn't matter. Another thing I noticed was the use of the two
>>>>>> musical themes: the love song the accordionist plays for him and
>>>>>> Irina,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the festive music incongruously piped in at the concentration camp
>>>>>>
>>>>> during
>>>
>>>> that amazing scene around Part 1, minute 45 where the prisoners are
>>>>>>
>>>>> being
>>>
>>>> marched in and the crematorium is going full blast down the road. At
>>>>>>
>>>>> some
>>>
>>>> point (I couldn't relocate it) Andrei has a flashback where he revisits
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> love song and his memories of Irina; then at minute 20 in Part 2,
>>>>>> while
>>>>>> processing his family's death after coming home from the war, he finds
>>>>>> himself hearing the concentration camp song on the record player and
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> suddenly transported back to that traumatic experience. Yet he does
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> smash the record right away; he stares at it for a minute, almost as
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> is resituating these two moments in relation to each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps I am overanalyzing, but I found both these motifs to speak to
>>>>>> Beth
>>>>>> and Monica's examples in the way they bring two moments back into
>>>>>>
>>>>> contact
>>>
>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, Mike and Andy's discussion in the Misha thread about the
>>>>>> watching
>>>>>> of a film functioning as perezhivanie for those viewers for whom it
>>>>>> reflects and repeats their own experience, raises a question about the
>>>>>> difference between extended perezhivanie and the personal re-enactment
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>
>>>> one's perezhivanie within a much smaller time scale (the two or three
>>>>>> hours
>>>>>> spent watching the movie). I hope at some point we could delve more
>>>>>>
>>>>> into
>>>
>>>> this issue of time frame and time scale in various forms of
>>>>>>
>>>>> perezhivanie.
>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you Marc! It was the third "plane" which was my intention in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> providing "Fate of a Man" for discussion. You picked out what were
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>> also the main (but by no means the only) instances of perezhivanija
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> movie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to me that Sokolov (the author) offers one perezhivanie in
>>>>>>> particular as the main theme of the movie. At the beginning of the
>>>>>>> movie,
>>>>>>> the man and boy walk up the path to the camera and at the end of the
>>>>>>> movie
>>>>>>> they walk off together again. So this is the central theme. As you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> say,
>>>
>>>> when Sokolov's family has all been killed, even his talented war-hero
>>>>>>> son
>>>>>>> who was going to be a famous mathematician, his life has become
>>>>>>> meaningless. I really liked your reflections of Sokolov's reflections
>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>> He sees the young orphan boy who, he discovers, has no family and
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> even know what town he comes from, but is aimlessly living on pieces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>> rubbish. He sees that the two of them are in the same situation. So
>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>> some time mulling this over a they sit together in the truck, he lies
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>
>>>> the boy and tells him that he is the boy's father, and they embrace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But
>>>
>>>> the boy questions this and he reasserts his claim and the boy accepts
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>> The man is able to define a new meaning for his life; he has done
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> autonomously without the help of a therapist, but he still needs
>>>>>>> another,
>>>>>>> the boy, to embody that meaning. But he knows it is his own
>>>>>>> invention.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> boy on the other hand has to be made to believe it is true; he is not
>>>>>>> sufficiently mature to manufacture this meaning himself, but as a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> child
>>>
>>>> he
>>>>>>> can be guided by an adult. As you say, Marc, it is very significant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> when
>>>
>>>> Sokolov tells us how he is now, again, worried about his own death.
>>>>>>> What if
>>>>>>> I died in my sleep? that would be a shock for my son!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me, this reflection causes me to look back on the man's whole
>>>>>>> struggle
>>>>>>> during the war: in the first phase he does not differentiate between
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> his
>>>
>>>> life as a father and husband and his life as a Soviet citizen - war is
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> duty and he is confident, as is everyone else, of victory. His
>>>>>>> bravery
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> driving his truck to the front line under fire reflects the fact that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> he
>>>
>>>> has never imagined his own death. Then he finds himself prostrate
>>>>>>> before 2
>>>>>>> Nazi soldiers who we assume are going among the wounded shooting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> anyone
>>>
>>>> who
>>>>>>> has survived. But surprisingly, he is allowed to live, but is to be
>>>>>>> used as
>>>>>>> a slave. Sokolov has been confronted by his own mortality for the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> first
>>>
>>>> time and he chooses life, but accepts slavery (Sartre and Hegel both
>>>>>>> thematize this moment in their philosophy). In this second phase of
>>>>>>> Sokolov's life he is a survivor. Everything hinges on surviving and
>>>>>>> returning to his wife and family. As you point out, Marc, his later
>>>>>>> reflections on this are particularly poignant, when he discovers the
>>>>>>> futility of this hope. Eventually, the life of forced labour becomes
>>>>>>> unbearable. He cries out: "Why are we forced to dig 3 cubic metres
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> when
>>>
>>>> 1
>>>>>>> cubic meter is enough for a grave!" Sokolov has accepted and embraced
>>>>>>> death
>>>>>>> after all. (Transition to the third phase.) To his German masters
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> an unendurable act of defiance. As David points out, there are flaws
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>> scene which follows, but ... he confronts his own death defiantly,
>>>>>>> stares
>>>>>>> it in the eye, spits on it, and his life again gains meaning as a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "brave
>>>
>>>> Soviet soldier" unafraid of death even in such an impossible moment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not
>>>
>>>> only does he survive, but takes the Nazi Colonel prisoner and hands
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>> war
>>>>>>> plans over to the Red Army. Now, when he is offered the chance to
>>>>>>> return to
>>>>>>> his wife as a war hero he declines and asks to be sent back to the
>>>>>>> front.
>>>>>>> His life has adopted this new meaning which casts his life as a
>>>>>>> father
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> the shade. He no longer fears death. But he is persuaded to take time
>>>>>>> off
>>>>>>> and learns of the death of his family. As Marc relates, the continued
>>>>>>> survival of his son, who is now also a war hero, provides continued
>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>> and integrates the two themes in his life. This takes work, as Marc
>>>>>>> points
>>>>>>> out, and he has the assistance of an older man, in achieving this
>>>>>>> redefinition of his life. But tragically, with the death of his son
>>>>>>> (and NB
>>>>>>> the end of the war, albeit in victory) his life is again without
>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>> Fourth phase. He has survived, but has no purpose. By becoming a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> father
>>>
>>>> again (Fifth phase), he regains the fear of death and meaning in his
>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>> It is real work, and we witness this psychological turmoil as he
>>>>>>> copes
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the idea that this scruffy orphan boy could be a son to him, and
>>>>>>> eventually
>>>>>>> he manages it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The transition between each phase is a critical period during which
>>>>>>> Sokolov's personality is transformed. Note also, that there is a
>>>>>>> premonition of this perezhivanie in Sokolov's earlier life: his
>>>>>>> family
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> wiped out in the Civil War and the famine of 1922, then he meets his
>>>>>>> wife-to-be, also raised in an orphanage, and they together create a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> life
>>>
>>>> and have 17 happy years before the Nazi invasion intrudes. So from the
>>>>>>> beginning of the movie we are introduced to the main theme.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are the main moments in the movie, which caused me to select it
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> discussion rather than any other movie. Also, there is no doubt that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>> producing this movie in 1958 the Soviet government was engaged with
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> its
>>>
>>>> people, in a process of collective perezhivanie and by reflecting on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>> collective perezhivanie during the period of the war, before and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> after,
>>>
>>>> they aim to assist the people in collectively assigning meaning to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> this
>>>
>>>> terrible suffering and like the man and his "son" walking again into
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>> future. As a propaganda movie, of course, it is open to much
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> criticism,
>>>
>>>> but
>>>>>>> that is hardly the point. I appreciate Marc's analysis in terms of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> other concepts he has introduced. I wouldn't mind a recap on these.
>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>> terms of Vasilyuk's concepts, Sokolov's life-world is *simple and
>>>>>>> difficult*. The boy's life world is *simple and easy*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we continue to discuss "Fate of a Man", while I open another
>>>>>>> movie
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> analysis? I think there are at least 10 subscribers to this list who
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> published in learned journals on the topic of perezhivanie in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> childhood.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps one of you would like to reflect on the boy's perezhivanija?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decisi
>>>>>>> on-making
>>>>>>> On 18/01/2017 5:14 AM, Marc Clarà wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and thank you, Andy, for sharing this amazing film, which I didn't
>>>>>>>> know. I
>>>>>>>> think it will be very useful to share and discuss our respective
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> views
>>>
>>>> on
>>>>>>>> perezhivanie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my view, the film could be analyzed in terms of perezhivanie in
>>>>>>>> three
>>>>>>>> different planes. First, we could consider the person who watches
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> film,
>>>>>>>> and we could study how the meaning she forms for the film
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> restructures
>>>
>>>> her
>>>>>>>> relationship with aspects of her real life -such as, for example,
>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> death or the death of a beloved one, etc. (perhaps this is a little
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bit
>>>
>>>> like what Beth and Monica, or Veresov and Fleer, do with their study
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>> playworlds?). In this plane, which would be perhaps the most
>>>>>>>> naturalistic
>>>>>>>> one, the film could be studied as an human-made cultural artifact
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which
>>>
>>>> restuctures psychological functions; here, the meaning formed for the
>>>>>>>> film
>>>>>>>> by who watches it and uses it as mediator in her relation to her
>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>>> would be an m-perezhivanie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a second plane, we could proceed as if the film was real life,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> could consider Sokolov telling his story to the man he meets by the
>>>>>>>> river
>>>>>>>> (a little bit like Carla telling her story to me). In this plane,
>>>>>>>> Sokolov's
>>>>>>>> narrative (i.e., what is showed to us as narrated flashback) could
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> considered as a cultural artifact that Sokolov uses to relate to all
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> happened to him. At this plane, the meaning of this narrative would
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie that, in that moment, mediates the relationship
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> between
>>>
>>>> Sokolov and the war events he experienced years ago (but these events
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> still very present to him, so although relating to past events,
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> here a Sokolov's activity [towards the past war events] which is in
>>>>>>>> present
>>>>>>>> -this echoes Christopher when, within our conversations, said: “Part
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>> this might also be a question of what it means to describe and
>>>>>>>> represent
>>>>>>>> one's own perezhivanie figuratively/narratively (whether to others,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> oneself), as opposed to living that perezhivanie. Especially if the
>>>>>>>> attempt
>>>>>>>> to capture/represent one's own perezhivanie is, perhaps, also
>>>>>>>> central
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> the living of it?”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a third plane, we could proceed as if Sokolov's narration was not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>
>>>> retrospective narration, but the on-time sequence of events with
>>>>>>>> on-time
>>>>>>>> Sokolov's explanation of these events (in the moments in which the
>>>>>>>> narrator
>>>>>>>> voice is assumed within the flashback). In this plane, there are
>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>> interesting perezhivanie phenomena. Clearly, there is a Sokolov's
>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>> of experiencing-as-struggle, which initiates when he realizes that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all
>>>
>>>> his
>>>>>>>> family, except one son, had been killed 2 years ago. At this moment,
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> life becomes meaningless; the meaning (m-perezhivanie) he uses to
>>>>>>>> relate
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> all his life (including the past) at this moment is expressed in his
>>>>>>>> conversation with his oncle: “it's got to be that this life of mine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>> nothing but a nightmare!”. In this moment, Sokolov's past in the
>>>>>>>> prision
>>>>>>>> camp becomes also meaningless: then, his link to life (the
>>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie
>>>>>>>> that made being alive meaningful to him) was meeting his family; but
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> at
>>>
>>>> that time his family was already dead, so when he discovers it, he
>>>>>>>> realizes
>>>>>>>> that this m-perezhivanie (the idea of meeting his family) was
>>>>>>>> linking
>>>>>>>> him
>>>>>>>> to death, not to life, so all his efforts to surviving become
>>>>>>>> meaningless:
>>>>>>>> “Every night, when I was a prisioner, I talked with them. Now it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> turns
>>>
>>>> out
>>>>>>>> that for two years I was talking with the dead?”. In this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> conversation,
>>>
>>>> however, his oncle offers him an alternative m-perezhivanie to relate
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> his life: he still has a son, so the m-perehivanie of meeting his
>>>>>>>> family
>>>>>>>> can still turns Sokolov's life meaningful: “you've got to go on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> living.
>>>
>>>> You
>>>>>>>> have to find Anatoly. When the war is over, your son will get
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> married,
>>>
>>>> you
>>>>>>>> will live with them. You will take up your carpentry again, play
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> grandkids”. It takes some time to Sokolov to enter into this
>>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie, but he does it and his life becomes meaningful
>>>>>>>> again:
>>>>>>>> “and
>>>>>>>> then, unexpectedly, I've got a gleam of sunlight”. But, then,
>>>>>>>> Anatoly
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>> dies. How to keep living? Here, Sokolov holds the m-perezhivanie
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> linked him to life until that moment, and therefore, he needs a son;
>>>>>>>> pretending being the father of Vanya turns his life meaningful
>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another interesting thing, still at that level, is how Sokolov's
>>>>>>>> relation
>>>>>>>> with his own immediate death changes along the different occasions
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> he faces it. I thing here there are examples of
>>>>>>>> experiencing-as-contemplation -in my view, this is not
>>>>>>>> experiencing-as-struggle because the situation of impossibility (the
>>>>>>>> immediate death) is removed existentially (Sokolov's life is given
>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>> him), so that there is not a permanent situation of impossibility
>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>> initially meaningless and is turned into meaningful. In each
>>>>>>>> occasion
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> which Sokolov is faced with his immediate death, the m-perezhivanie
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> mediates this relationship is different. When he is captured, his
>>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie is expressed as: “here's my death coming after me”.
>>>>>>>> When he
>>>>>>>> is conducted to meet the nazi official, the m-perezhivanie is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> expressed
>>>
>>>> as:
>>>>>>>> “the end of your misery”, “to my death and my release of this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> torment,
>>>
>>>> I
>>>>>>>> will drink”. In the first, the death is running after Sokolov; in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> second, it is Sokolov happily going to meet death. Later, at the end
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> film, he faces his immediate death again, and the m-perezhivanie is
>>>>>>>> expressed as: “I'm really worried that I might die in my sleep, and
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> would frighten my little son”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, just some thoughts after watching this wonderful film.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2017-01-15 0:06 GMT+01:00 Christopher Schuck <
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> schuckcschuck@gmail.com
>>>
>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, definitely that article! And specifically, when I used
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "pivoting"
>>>
>>>> I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> couldn't help but think of Beth's earlier example about how a child
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> use a stick as a pivot for a horse. Perhaps a somewhat different
>>>>>>>>> application but related, no?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
>>>>>>>>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chris, all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> your post is totally relevant to Beth's and Monica's article in the
>>>>>>>>>> special issue. They write about film and perezhivanie (quoting
>>>>>>>>>> Sobchack)
>>>>>>>>>> the following:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The reason that film allows us to glimpse the future is that there
>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>> connection between filmic time and ‘real’ time: “The images of a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> film
>>>
>>>> exist
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in the world as a temporal flow, within finitude and situation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fascination of the film is that it does not transcend our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> lived-experience
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of temporality, but rather that it seems to partake of it, to share
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it”
>>>>>>>>>> (1992, p. 60).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And later
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Specifically, the way that the flow of time becomes
>>>>>>>>>> multidirectional is
>>>>>>>>>> that “rehearsals make it necessary to think of the future in such
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to create a past” (1985, p. 39). As Schechner ex-plains: “In a very
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>>>> way the future – the project coming into existence through the
>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> rehearsal – determines the past: what will be kept from earlier
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> rehearsals
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or from the “source ma-terials” (1985, p. 39)."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.e
>>>
>>>> du>
>>>>>>>>>> on behalf of Christopher Schuck <schuckcschuck@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 14 January 2017 21:43
>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fate of a Man
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But that's both the limitation and strength of art or fictional
>>>>>>>>>> narrative
>>>>>>>>>> as opposed to real life, isn't it? That art focuses our attention
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>
>>>> highlights certain features in a way that is idealized and
>>>>>>>>>> artificially
>>>>>>>>>> "designed" to convey something more clearly and purely (but less
>>>>>>>>>> organically and authentically) than it would be conveyed in the
>>>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> living it, or observing someone else living it? One way to get
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> around
>>>
>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> would be, as David says, to analyze the film in terms of clues as
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> stages of emergence. But maybe another way to use the film would
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> view
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it not so much as a complete, self-sufficient "example" of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> perezhivanie,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a *tool *for pivoting back and forth between the concept of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> perezhivanie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> imaginatively constructed (through fiction), and the concept of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> perezhivanie as imaginatively constructed (through our real living
>>>>>>>>>> experience and observation of it). So, it would be the *pivoting*
>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>> these two manifestations of the concept (designed vs. evolved, as
>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it) that reveals new insights about perezhivanie, rather than
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the concept from the film per se.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 3:08 PM, David Kellogg <
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think there's a good reason why Andy started a new thread on
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this:
>>>
>>>> he's a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> very tidy thinker (quite unlike yours truly) and he knows that one
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> why xmca threads are seldom cumulative is that they digress to
>>>>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> problems without solving the immmediate ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, of course, a film allows us to consider an example of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "perezhivanie",
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but it is a designed perezhivanie rather than an evolved one; it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> explicitly display the various stages of emergence required for a
>>>>>>>>>> genetic
>>>>>>>>>> analysis, unless we analyze it not as a complete and finished work
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>> art
>>>>>>>>>> but instead for clues as to the stages of its creation (the way
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> example, "Quietly Flows the Don" was analyzed to determine its
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> authenticity).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I remember that In the original short story, the schnapps
>>>>>>>>>>> drinking
>>>>>>>>>>> scene seemed like pure sleight of hand: an artistically
>>>>>>>>>>> gratuitous
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of what eventually gave Soviet social realism such a bad name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Carol Macdonald <
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fellow XMCa-ers
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have watched it through now, thank you Andy, but right now only
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> psychological categories come to mind.  I will watch it again and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> meanwhile let my fellows with more recent experience of
>>>>>>>>>>> /perezhivanie/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the discussion further.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a kind of timeless story, and modern film techniques would
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> more explicit. At the least I would say it has for me a Russian
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of suffering, perhaps because of their unique
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it. But having said that, WWII must have generated other similar
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> experiences, apart from the first part about Andrei's family
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dying
>>>
>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> famine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 January 2017 at 02:15, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I watched it in two parts with subtitles:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16w7fg_destiny-of-a-man-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1959-pt-1_creation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16wat4_destiny-of-a-man-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1959-pt-2_creation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision-making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2017 2:35 AM, Beth Ferholt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for taking us to a shared example.  I think that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cultural Historical Activity Theory
>>>>>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> 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