[Xmca-l] Re: xmca new discussion started SOCIOLOGY | PSYCHOLOGY

Fri Jun 9 12:11:53 PDT 2017

I had to make a pause in my contributing to the discussion, as we (my family) are these days relocating from Victoria to Europe (in Spain at the moment). But I have kept  wondering (and wandering) around the topic that came up in Yasuko Kawatoko's article concerning emotion and infrastructure, and then about ANT and CHAT. And so I was thinking that the question relates to that of the connection between sociology and psychology, does not it? For is there the possibility of a psychology without a sociology in either ANT or CHAT? 

To travel from Victoria to Alicante, we (2 adults and a 7-year and a 2-year) had to take a drive (a friend drove us) from (no longer) home to the airport, then, after a number of procedures at the airport, got into a plain to fly Victoria - Calgary; then Calgary - Amsterdam; then Amsterdam - Madrid, then a taxi that would drive us to a high-speed train to Alicante. Then a (family) drive from Alicante to a small town in the province of Valencia. That's an infrastructure. And that's a lot of affect generated. I could not help but to think on the relation between infrastructure and emotion all the way... 

Alfredo  
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Sent: 02 June 2017 07:05
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: xmca new discussion started

Michael, to pick up this thread:
“ The important part of the quotation is this: "*the methods* in
and through which members concertedly produce and assemble," and these
include making the very production and assembly available to each other.

In particular the phrase:

“in and through which” the methods are assembled [arranged].

Here is the way that Kenneth Liberman makes a similar observation within a note # 1

 1 The phrase ‘‘in and as of’’ intends to retain the actual state of affairs of a social practice. Instead of conceiving of a metaphysical object, ‘‘science,’’ which ‘‘has’’ certain practices, a science consists of its practices. It does not exist apart from them; in fact, the task of any inquiry into the lebenswelt origins of sciences takes its departure from this recognition. A science is nothing more than, and nothing less than, the activities of its practitioners. The phrase promises to retain the important insight, which is consistent with Husserl’s own phenomenological discoveries, that a science does not merely exist in its practices, it exists as its practices. The perspective is vital to an anti-essentialist inquiry, and the phrase is employed frequently in ethnomethodology (cf. Garﬁnkel, 2002, p. 92, 99, 138, 207, 211, 246, 247; Garﬁnkel and Wieder, 1992, p. 175).

So the two  phrases
“in and through which” & “in and as of” are indicating a way of making visible a work  or a method or a discipline AS practices.

For further elaboration here reproduced  a  full page of the article written by Kenneth Liberman where note #1 is generated: This page  may be taking us off topic or it may be relevant??  This page  is bringing in another approach exploring the origins of ethno “methods”.

“ While Husserl provided the direction for our ethnomethodological investigations, the lived work of various sciences––in their coherent, work-site speciﬁc organizational Things-in-distinctive-details, case by case for the particular sciences––are obscured by Husserl’s use of formal generalities in both The Gottingen Lectures and The Crisis. Regrettably, and as a certainty, both of Husserl’s treatises lose the phenomenon they were written carefully to describe. That is, they lose the phenomenon of the actual work-sites of any science. And there they also lose the instructed actions of the scientists, i.e. their actual world-generating collaborations. They lose the phenomenon by losing just-how their instructed actions are administered to reveal for the scientists their work, as well as the objects they are studying. In Husserl’s program, the lebenswelt origins, being only formally exhibited by the lectures, do not actually describe any lebenswelt practices. They do not exhibit lebenswelt practices with lived-in-the-course instructed actions. They merely allude to lebenswelt practices. The real achievement of Husserl’s program, then, is that the actual lived work of sciences are alluded to as lived practices. And that is no small achievement. The Gottingen Lectures and The Crisis assert the promises of Husserl’s monumental program. Their incongruous anomaly is that their promise was neither noticed nor recognized by bench practitioners of any science. The program of The Crisis was never taken up by scientists, nor was it welcomed as ﬁlling a ‘‘gap’’ in the coherence of a particular science, in and as of its discovered topics and practices.1 Nevertheless, despite the fact that scientists rarely welcomed Husserl’s inquiries, in epistemological philosophy the program remains venerated as Husserl’s achievement. Yet even there Husserl’s program has not been taken up in a radical way, as the familiar haecceities2 of an actual science. It has only been used to illustrate cases for ep
istemological arguments about the sciences. Hence, the task of taking up Husserl’s program seriously remains. This is not to say that no ground has been gained. Very little in The Gottingen Lectures redescribes the lived work of any actual science. On the contrary, the lectures forcefully point to the absence of haecceities in any and every particular science. These absent details can involve the shop talk, local gestural organization, the local endogenous practices of social order production and accountability, and their coherent substantive material, which might include board notes, personal notebooks, diaries, diagrams, scribblings, books, ....”

The theme here is the shift from a theory  being “formally exhibited” within  disciplinary methods to re-mark what was previously  formally exhibited to become a method of describing  lebenswelt practices. [ethno practices].

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Wolff-Michael Roth
Sent: June 1, 2017 5:48 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: xmca new discussion started

Thanks Martin,

I do not view what I am saying--though it is differently said---from what
you quote. The important part of the quotation is this: "*the methods* in
and through which members concertedly produce and assemble," and these
include making the very production and assembly available to each other. In
all of this, some things are unquestioned, and Garfinkel wrote considerably
on the invisible background assumption . . .

Michael

Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>

New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
wrote:

> Hi Wolff-Michael,
>
> I agree with most of what you’ve written, but not the suggestion that EM
> starts from the assumption that people (simply) make visible order that has
> its origins somewhere else. I’ll quote from an encyclopedia article by Doug
> Maynard and Teddy Kardash:
>
>
> Ethnomethodology is an area in sociology originating in the work of Harold
> Garfinkel. It represents an effort to study the methods in and through
> which members concertedly produce and assemble the features of everyday
> life in any actual, concrete, and not hypothetical or theoretically
> depicted setting…. Members of society achieve this intelligible
> organization through actual, coordinated, concerted, procedural behaviors
> or methods and practices.
>
>  Martin
>
> On Jun 1, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com<mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Martin,
> I would have thought that ethno*methodology* is the study of the methods,
> the work, people use to make social orders visible. In this, it is very
> different from all other research, qualitative and quantitative. Garfinkel
> describes it as *incommensurably different *from, among others,
> interpretive studies of social life. He distinguishes EM from formal
> analytic studies, all those that have to specify methods because these
> methods are different from the methods people use in everyday life. EM does
> not dispute the results of other research; its interests are completely
> elsewhere.
> Practically, EM is interested in change if it is what people do; it is not
> interested in the change but how people do make change and the required
> work visible to each other.
> Michael
>
>
> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> Applied Cognitive Science
> MacLaurin Building A567
> University of Victoria
> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>
> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
> wrote:
>
> Larry, I also was thinking that visibility, in other EM/CA studies also as
> instructability, speaks to change. A
> ________________________________________
> 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 Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com<mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com
> >>
> Sent: 02 June 2017 01:44
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: xmca new discussion started
>
> Martin,
> This sentence,
> “Creating and sustaining order always requires change”
> And therefore makes visible change as the norm
> Seems to be pregnant with an evocative enacting of possibility for novel
> kinds of social fabric[continuing with the weaving theme]
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil
> Sent: June 1, 2017 4:18 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: xmca new discussion started
>
> Yes, I agree with what you say. I guess I used the word change where I
> meant development. So I am going to change my question:
>
> What do and could do researchers concerned with development (social,
> personal) with EM.
>
> You recently shared with us a beautiful book on the topic of development.
> How does EM feature in it?
> 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 Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co<mailto:
> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>>
> Sent: 02 June 2017 00:40
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: xmca new discussion started
>
> Hi Alfredo,
>
> I’ve always thought that EM deals very well with change, because it does
> not treat stasis as the norm. EM is the study of the methods that people
> (actants) employ to create and sustain order, various kinds of order.
> Creating and sustaining order always requires change.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2017, at 5:24 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>> wrote:
>
> I personally find ethnomethodology EM fascinating and a powerful approach
> to stick the realities of social life; but I always wondered what does EM
> do with questions of change.
>
>
>
>
>
>