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

Fri Jun 9 20:40:00 PDT 2017

Alfredo, your post reminded me of a very cool book that was recently
published, called Affective Circuits.

Check it out:
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo24663172.html

Your post particularly reminded me of the cover (which you can see at the
link) which is an image of a perhaps troubled face superimposed on a map of
central Europe.

Conjures up quite a bit of, yes, affect, at this particular historical
moment.

(oh, and what's between the covers is great too!).
-greg

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

> 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:l
> pscholar2@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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

-- 
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