[Xmca-l] Re: Jang's SL Article Discussion

[David Kellogg]

(It was a good article, Eun-young, and a great choice, Alfredo; but xmca's
attention is elsewhere right now. This has happened so often in our
Vygotsky group meetings in Seoul that we have a hyperbolic way of referring
to the "rump" discussions that result: "Ekla Chalo Re".)

In the "perezhivanie" discussion, Andy worried a little that when people
are too polite, differences don't get clarified. I think that's one worry,
but it's a rather predictable worry for those of us who just like a good
knock-down fight. The other worry is that outsiders look on, can't really
figure out what all the fuss is about, and don't want to get into the
scrum.

So I applaud Alfredo's polite focus on what we have in common; it's not
really in my nature (I am more like Andy that way) but it seems right here.
Besides, I really DO agree (emphatically--I was going to say violently!)
with what Alfredo says about the fallacious formulation "language as tool".
Yes, I know that there are passages--especially in the early,
"instrumental" Vygotsky--where he does speak of language as a psychological
tool. But part of development is turning language back on itself, and when
Vygotsky does this at the end of Chapter Two of HDHMF, he emphasizes a
"logical" link (both tools and language are mediating activities), a real
difference (one is directed to "turning the tables" on the environment, and
the other actually helps you "turn the tables" on your damn self), and
tells us to  work out the concrete differences genetically, historically,
practically.

But I have three possible points of (polite!) disagreement with what
Alfredo says next. Here they are:

a) I think that prescriptivism is a very important part of being a teacher.
It's not just because you care about what happens to the learner next. It's
because you have to be honest with yourself about what you are doing and
why. Richard Shweder says there are only three possible positions about
human differences: one is that we are all really the same (universalism).
Another is that we are all different, but the differences don't matter
(relativism). And the third is that there are differences, and they matter.
Like it or not (and Shweder doesn't like it) being a developmentologist
means you believe in the last of these. As a teacher you may believe in all
three, but you know that the first two are about human potential, and the
last is very concrete, very real, and has consequences for--for
example--life expectancy, liberty and happiness that you cannot ignore.

b)  I think that the belief that the first language is learned in exactly
the same way as the second language is objectively a racist belief. I agree
with Alfredo that the intention is not racist: Stephen Krashen, who argued
this position more forcefully than anyone in the last half century or so,
has an exemplary record as a fighter for bilingual education and for the
rights of minority languages. But if first languages are learned the same
way as second languages, then the second language learners in your
classroom are by definition retards and you as a teacher have the right to
utterly ignore the way in which their first language mediates the second
language. Like all objectively racist beliefs, this one is theoretically,
empirically, and also ethically untenable. Refuting this kind of
thing--theoretically, empirically, and ethically--for the benefit of
teachers like the one in Eun-young's study--is the kind of thing that
intellectuals who are transformatively inclined need to be preoccupied
with, because it's the kind of action that only transformatively inclined
intellectuals can take.

c)  I don't think that intentions count for much in the end, and I think
that the Christian desire to move them to the forefront of every action and
make them the moral touchstone is exactly what leads to the kind of thing
we are seeing in the confirmation hearings of Jeff Sessions and now Neil
Gorsuch. This move gives racism too much plausible deniability; it's
incompatible with the concrete struggle against the effects of racism. The
teacher in Eun-young's study probably has good intentions (but, as I said
above, a totally inaccurate cognitive understanding of the dynamics of
learning a second language and even of her own classroom). The students
probably have bad intentions (but, actually, pretty accurate understandings
of learning and classroom dynamics): racism is, in lots of teenagers,
simply a pseudoconceptual understanding of nationhood and of citizenship,
and this pseudoconceptual understanding does exist in Korea, which not only
has a long and relatively "pure" racial history but also experienced, in
very recent times, not one but two racially marked foreign occupations. The
question is not how to act on intentions; the question is how to create a
true concept. Negating a pseudoconceptual understanding is, of course, a
kind of prescriptivism, but it's an essential one.

And that brings me back to that hyperbolic, bitter, inappropriate poem by
Rabindranath Tagore, which nevertheless manages to express pretty exactly
the way we sometimes feel as teachers. This is Tagore's own translation
from his original mother tongue, Bengali:

 If they answer not to your call, walk alone
If they are afraid and cower mutely facing the wall,O thou unlucky one,open
your mind and speak out alone.If they turn away, and desert you when
crossing the wilderness,O thou unlucky one,trample the thorns under thy
tread, and along the blood-lined track travel alone.If they shut doors and
do not hold up the light when the night is troubled with storm,O thou
unlucky one,with the thunder flame of pain ignite your own heart, and let
it burn alone.

Here's a musical version in the first language, by Shreya Ghosal (notice
the various Indian politicians in the audience, including some communalists
from the BJP!):

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPqdlR_X1Vk
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPqdlR_X1Vk>*

David Kellogg

Macquarie University


:






On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

> David, Eun-Young, all,
>
> I am so glad that David and Eun-Young have found a fruitful common ground
> in (and outside) the article's discussion.
>
> When I chose the paper for this Issue 1 discussion, I thought (perhaps
> wrongly) that many xmca'ers would be interested in the paper for several
> reasons, one being the intermingling of social (ideological) and
> subject-related (second language) aspects. I always find it very
> interesting the amount of learning that goes on in classrooms (and homes)
> that is not what canonical descriptions of teaching/learning would (and
> possibly could) have anticipated. I am talking about what Dewey refers to
> as 'collateral learning', that is, learning that is not intended nor
> prescribed by the curriculum, but which nonetheless is consequence of its
> application.
>
> Dewey (in Education and Experience) describes collateral learning as the
> 'formation of enduring attitudes, of likes and dislikes, [which] may be and
> often is much more important than the spelling lesson or lesson in
> geography or history that is learned' This is so absolutely obvious, and
> yet (in a expression Mike recently used in a talk at Vancouver's SFO) is
> universally ignored.
>
> David, you remind us that Vygotsky was trans-disciplinary in the sense
> that his field was development, that he was a 'developmentologist' (and you
> use the felicitous expression 'pre-able' as an example). I think, and this
> is something authors such as Newman and Holzman (in their Vygotsky as
> revolutionary scientist) have spelled out, that being a developmentologist
> is very much an ideology as well, one that is irreconcilable with the
> prescriptive ideology that Eun-Young describes in her article and that we
> find ourselves being part of in many occasions everyday. The latter seems
> to be based on the believe that social (and living) things exist in cause -
> effect relations pretty much in the same way that physical (non-living)
> things exist in the universe. Language then can be seen as a tool (and in
> fact often is described as a tool even in the sociocultural literature that
> cites Vygotsky) that an individual can use to do things. It is then
> possible to think of the teaching of second language as the teaching of one
> thing, rather than as the formation of whole persons, and not just whole
> persons but of societal forms of relating, indeed. But if you embrace
> Vygotsky's points on development, specially on the fact that what is
> developing is  whole persons (with affects, motives) and not just isolated
> bits of information, then learning a (second) language is always so much
> more than learning to speak words and sentences in a second language.
>
> I applaud the author's call for challenging 'ESL educators and
> institutions ... to construct a learning environment in which diverse ESL
> students' voices are ... heard and discussed, not only about their English
> learning, but also about their social struggles' (p. 43). But, considering
> the prescriptive ideology that the classroom relations in the focus article
> realise, I am surprised by the author's use of the term 'illogical
> antagonism against other racial/ethnic groups'. Such antagonism seemed very
> logical to them, in fact, immediately logical. I am not as kin as the
> author is in attributing intentions to the individual participants (see,
> e.g., p. 41). Just as the teacher did not intend inequity, I don't think
> the Korean learners were being racist (which they effectively were)
> 'intentionally.' Logic here has to do with organic being, not with formal
> ideas. And that organic being is about developmental relations, not things
> (cause) against things (effect). The more I think about it, and the more I
> work with it, the more I understand that being an educator is one of the
> most complex, misunderstood and undervalued task in today's society.
>
> I hope the article continues to sparkle some interest in the coming days.
> Meanwhile, thanks Eun-Young and David for a sustained and productive
> dialogue.
> Alfredo
>
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> Sent: 20 March 2017 21:45
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Jang's SL Article Discussion
>
> When I was a teenager, my best friend played piano. Tommy didn't just play:
> he composed--I'd get cassette letters from him where he would forget to
> talk, and just improvise a whole side of beautiful music. He also had
> perfect pitch--I'd play a random note on the bass and he would start
> talking about "my" B flat; somebody behind us in the traffic would honk,
> and he'd call out "C!".
>
> He was color blind. He could tell the traffic lights by their position, of
> course. But he couldn't tell a blue from a green, a yellow from an orange,
> or even a yellow from a green. They were just unnameable colors.  He'd say
> "green" and you'd correct him with "blue" and he'd say "whatever". I'd ask
> him--Can't you SEE the difference? And he'd smile and ask me what note my
> word "see" was. If I said "C", I'd get a lecture on the major scales.
>
> You might think that these are purely physiological differences without
> social dimensions, and I'm sure, in Tommy's case anyway, something genetic
> was going on. But if you think a minute, you'll see that a lot of his
> "blindness" and my "deafness"  is about naming things, not perceiving them.
> You will also see that in both cases there is a certain "social"
> overcompensation going on: both of us used our strong points to overcome
> our weak ones, and this led to "circuitous and indirect" ways of social
> functioning: Tommy went on to the Berklee School of Music, and I wrote
> lyrics for his songs and eventually became a painter.
>
> Vygotsky's transdisciplinary, but perhaps involuntarily so. He worked in
> defectology on the one hand and in pedology on the other. The common thread
> was--development, non-canonical and more typical. So he was really a
> developmentologist. That is a color, or a note, that doesn't actually exist
> for academics today, so in our color-blind, tone-deaf way we just call him
> a psychologist.
>
> I think you're right that racism has an additional social dimension, and I
> will call this politico-social, since Tommy's inability to name is
> certainly social, and so is his circumlocution. This politico-social
> dimension of racism is really just an ideological correlate of the fact
> that social progress is not planned: we have, in a rather willy-nilly way,
> evolved tools and signs to fit one dominant type of culture and one
> dominant type of psychophysiology rather than another.
>
> Sometimes this politico-social dimension also attaches itself to
> disabilities like (total) blindness and deafness. But it doesn't have to.
> >From a defectological perspective, these people are not "disabled", but
> only "pre-abled"--that is, we have invented circuitous and indirect" ways
> of circumventing these "defects"  (e.g. Braille, ASL) but we haven't yet
> socially evolved them as mainstream abilities.
>
> In Seattle there was a loggers'union whose members were from many different
> language backgrounds (Swedish, Chinook, Russian, and a few English speakers
> like my grandfather, who was a book keeper). People used American Sign
> Language in the sawmill; if you weren't deaf when you started, you would be
> within a year, because the conditions in the sawmills were so awful. But
> they strongly resisted any suggestion that this made them "disabled". At
> one point, the union wanted to condemn Helen Keller, because she was
> consorting with Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, who
> wanted to force deaf children to lip-read instead of learning ASL. Some
> people excused her: after all, she's disabled, because she's blind.
>
> Most articles (especially most articles in TESOL Q!) use "mediation" as a
> subcategory of teaching-learning (the "good" kind, the kind of
> teaching-learning that is sensitive to learner needs on the one hand and
> context on the other). One of the things I liked about your article is that
> you recognized that "mediation" is not a subcategory but an enormous
> supercategory, including "being a student" in a set of social roles. What
> we think of as teaching-learning is only a very small subcategory: a
> planned, deliberate, and as a result highly atypical form of mediation. To
> me, though, this makes "mediation" a very baggy pair of trousers--not a
> good fit for most of what goes on in classrooms!
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
>
>
> one shadow is different from another. . I once It just wasn't there. .
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Eun Young Jang <eunyoung1112@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear David
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the interesting and helpful comments on my paper! I really
> > enjoyed your comments and was also pleased to receive your questions
> about
> > Juan in my earlier paper (TESOL Quarterly). I attach my paper here so
> that
> > other colleagues can read it if they want.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, I do think that what happened in the ESL classroom can be understood
> > from the  "pedological" end as well, as you said. The point that I wanted
> > to make in my study was that we should understand 'why a learner acts in
> > certain way' from multiple perspectives. It is just like a piece of a
> > multilayered cake.
> >
> > By the way, I think I need to learn more about what you meant by
> > 'defectological' end.  When you said 'defect', did you mean some problems
> > that people might have in their development? If so, I would like to share
> > my opinion. Everyone might have some problems that they must handle (and
> > problems that can be handled by some great pedagogical methods).
> Sometimes
> > the problems are minor (curable) and sometimes they are not (such as
> > blindness). However, not all of them are on the same level or same
> > dimension. In other words, I think we cannot equate some life's
> challenges
> > (such as illness) and racial discrimination. They are on different
> levels.
> > The latter is intrinsically social, I think. Further, in multicultural
> > education, 'deficit' has very negative connotation because it alludes
> that
> > there are some 'perfect' things in opposition.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here, I also pasted my response to your earlier email (off the xmca list)
> > below to share it with otehrs.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much for your ‘off-list’ email and interests in my
> articles.
> > Thanks to you, I was happy to remind of Juan, the lovely little boy who I
> > was with for more than a year.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, we did have an interview with Juan. The other author, Chris Iddings’
> > first language was Spanish so she was able to communicate with Juan with
> no
> > problem. But I remember that whether Juan understood the situation or not
> > was decided from our observations of his actions. In particular, the
> focus
> > of our observations was on the ways the joint attentional frames were
> > formed because we thought the frames played a critical role as a
> > mediational means in facilitating Juan’s learning. Oh, I also recall that
> > when we say Juan’s learning, it was not always learning of English but
> also
> > learning of the classroom discourses. About the quiet mouse events, Juan
> > wanted to be picked eagerly by pointing his finger to his own chest and
> > contacting eyes with the student with the mouse. About the testing, I
> > remember that Juan did understand the procedure of the testing and acted
> > like a student but in fact, it appeared that he was not able to get the
> > right answers in terms of English. Well, this should not be a problem
> > because understanding the classroom discourses would serve a scaffolding
> > for him to learn contents eventually.  Hope my brief answer has satisfied
> > your curiosity about my study a bit.
> >
> >
> >
> > David, I think we have a lot in common. Let’s keep in touch. I’d love to
> > drop by the Dasomcha meeting some day! By the way, I have been in SIG for
> > Critical Pedagogy for almost 6years. If you have a plan to visit Korea
> > again, you are invited to our Critical Pedagogy meeting as well!
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > EY.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:28 AM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Professor Jang:
> > >
> > > Relax, you are among friends and co-thinkers. Well, a lot of friends,
> > some
> > > of whom are probably very close co-thinkers. It's a very big list, but
> I
> > > doubt if anybody who read your article would accuse you of teacher
> > bashing.
> > > I also don't think anybody who read it would think that you used your
> > > Korean-ness in any other way than a good researcher uses any resource
> > that
> > > affords empathy with the researched. And I DO think that you provided
> "a"
> > > way of bridging a socioculural and a cognitivist approach to the second
> > > language classroom. Perhaps even two ways.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that one way is from the "contextualist" end; that is,
> to
> > > redefine a context in abstract terms, including things like attitudes,
> > > motivations, and teaching ideologies right in the context. I think this
> > is
> > > actually much more difficult than it looks: some people will consider
> > this
> > > behavioristic, because it assumes that attitudes, motivations and
> > > ideologies can be treated as external to mind. I think it actually only
> > > considers them as external to text. Other people will consider it
> > upwardly
> > > reductionistic, because it assumes that attitudes, motivations and
> > > ideologies can be reduced to society and to culture and to context of
> > > situation. I think that society and culture and context of situation
> must
> > > always be considered as a complex whole, including cognition, but not
> > > subsuming it.
> > >
> > > It also seems to me that another is from the "organicist" end; that is,
> > to
> > > define attitudes, motivations, and ideologies as something in some way
> > > independent of cognition (the "distributed cognition" people are good
> at
> > > this). Again, this isn't so easy, particularly in an American context.
> > > America is now going through a kind of crisis, because racism has
> > > previously been defined in only one of two ways. Either racism is part
> of
> > > cognition--in which case it really only exists in people who subscribe,
> > > paradoxically, to "objective" scientific racism, to the belief that
> > > non-whites are actually inferior. Or racism is part of culture--in
> which
> > > case it really only exists in the debilitating effects it has on the
> > > oppressed, and it doesn't really matter what it is that racists believe
> > > (or, for that matter, what non-racists believe: Obama was just as
> guilty
> > of
> > > black unemployment as Bush).
> > >
> > > What I suggest is, rather perversely, a third way. It's from the
> > > "pedological, defectological" end. That is, attitudes, motivations and
> > the
> > > teaching ideologies which derive from them need to be understood not
> only
> > > as part of the context but also as part of pedology, a whole science of
> > the
> > > child. Unfortunately, Vygotsky's writings on this are not available in
> > > English, but they ARE available in good Korean:
> > >
> > > http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/common/wseriesitem.aspx?SRID=25565
> > >
> > > Similarly, the ravages of racism (including the "damunhwa kyoyuk"
> > developed
> > > in Korea under Yi Myeongbak and Park Geunhye, which was concerned with
> > > providing "equal opportunity" to the majority as well as to the
> minority)
> > > need to be considered not simply as stigma on the dominant race or as
> > > stigmata of the oppressed but more defectologically. "Defect" wasn't an
> > > insult in the USSR: Vygotsky actually considers "yeongje kyoyuk" (that
> > is,
> > > "genius education"), education of the blind, education of the deaf,
> > > so-called "learning disabilities" not as "disabilities" but as
> > > defects--that is, normal disadvantages to be overcome in the same way
> as
> > > any other obstacle in learning, through "circuitous and indirect", that
> > is,
> > > mediated, means of learning. We have evolved our means of education, as
> > > Vygotsky says, to cater to the needs of the psychophysiological
> dominant
> > > group, but the mark of higher forms of social progress is how it can
> > > develop the niches within this and the needs of those who are not
> > > psychophysiologically dominant.
> > >
> > > (Do you know Professor Kim Jinseok? I worked at SNUE for over ten years
> > > myself, and our Vygotsky group still meets there every Saturday to
> > > translate the work of Vygotsky into Korean. If you are on campus on a
> > > Saturday, we are usually in room 315, over "Dasomchae" near the front
> > gate,
> > > from noon until about four!)
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Macquarie University
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Eun Young Jang <
> eunyoung1112@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > ​
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone, thank you very much for reading my article. This is
> such a
> > > > great opportunity for me to introduce my work and receive comments
> from
> > > > wonderful colleagues.
> > > >
> > > > First, let me introduce myself briefly. I earned my doctorate in
> > > Language,
> > > > Literacy, and Culture in the Department of Teaching and Learning at
> > > > Vanderbilt University. I am currently working as an assistant
> professor
> > > in
> > > > Multicultural Education at Seoul National University of Education
> > located
> > > > in Seoul, South Korea. My research interests are in the impact of the
> > > > social context on second language teaching and learning. Another
> paper
> > > > published recently deals with sustainable globalization of higher
> > > education
> > > > focusing on cultures and languages in a foreign professor’s classroom
> > in
> > > S.
> > > > Korea. My current research project is about North Korean refugee
> > students
> > > > learning English in South Korea.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My article for xmca discussion was initiated from my observation that
> > ESL
> > > > students were not actually focusing on learning English in the ESL
> > > > classroom but instead, on ‘acting’ learning with an attempt to
> achieve
> > > > certain social position (as an individual or a group). In
> particular, I
> > > > noted that they were quite skillful in using ‘seemingly’ academic
> > > > strategies to conceal what they were actually doing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The ESL students were very sensitive to things happening to them in
> > terms
> > > > of marginalization and discrimination but did not reveal to others
> > > > explicitly what they really thought. Instead, they took advantage of
> > the
> > > > school discourse that was legitimized in the context, that was,
> acting
> > > like
> > > > motivated and strategic learners by participating in class activities
> > > > actively and strategically. In spite of regular observations of ESL
> > > classes
> > > > back then, I could not figure out what was happening in the classroom
> > for
> > > > the first couple of months. Later on, the social dynamics among
> > students
> > > > and between students and the teacher surfaced to me and also they
> began
> > > to
> > > > open their minds and told me how they felt isolated and
> discriminated.
> > > > Then, I was able to see the meanings of their actions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In effect, the ESL teacher tried hard to be fair and in a sense, the
> > > French
> > > > student was isolated and discriminated by the Korean students in the
> > ESL
> > > > classroom. Nevertheless, Korean students victimized themselves. I
> > thought
> > > > that it was still important and valuable to acknowledge how the
> Korean
> > > > students felt simply because the feelings were there and they made
> some
> > > > consequences (such as silencing the French student). I wanted to
> reveal
> > > > that how the students felt and why they felt that way and how they
> > > reacted
> > > > to their feelings. Whether the discrimination was real or not was not
> > > > important.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A reviewer from other journal has criticized my article badly for
> > teacher
> > > > bashing. But definitely I did not mean it. Also, some readers of my
> > > article
> > > > said that because I am Korean, I was on the Korean students’ side.
> The
> > > fact
> > > > was, the ESL teacher and I were good friends and this even made the
> > > Korean
> > > > students suspicious of my position (like a spy from the ‘white’
> teacher
> > > > side). Anyway, honestly, the comments from other scholars made me
> feel
> > > > constrained conducting research about the same ethnic group. Now, I’d
> > > like
> > > > to know about your opinion about this issue.
> > > >
> > > > Again, the fact that the participants were Korean was not the main
> > focus
> > > of
> > > > my study. I wanted to show how they used strategies, which were
> > typically
> > > > categorized as individual and cognitive traits, for social purposes.
> > So,
> > > > the bigger agenda of my study was to explore “a” way to bridge the
> > > > dichotomy between individual and sociocultural camps.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > EY.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:12 AM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Alfredo:
> > > > >
> > > > > Down the hall one of the Chinese translators is working on
> > translations
> > > > of
> > > > > the Chinese "State of the Union" address into English. The Chinese
> > goes
> > > > > something like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > 消除贫困取得进展。
> > > > > xiāochú pínkùn qǔdé jìnzhǎn.
> > > > >
> > > > > Literally:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Eradicate Poverty Achieve Progress", i.e. "(The government) (made)
> > > some
> > > > > progress in the eradication of poverty."
> > > > >
> > > > > In Chinese we don't have to specify the agent, and we don't need to
> > use
> > > > the
> > > > > effective verb "made"; it's a happening and not a doing. This used
> to
> > > be
> > > > > because the agent went without saying--it's encoded in the grammar.
> > > > Partly
> > > > > thanks to a poetic tradition going back more than a thousand years,
> > > > Chinese
> > > > > lends itself to four-syllable slogan-like objects like "Eradicate
> > > > Poverty"
> > > > > and "Achieve Progress", and putting them together sounds natural.
> We
> > > > don't
> > > > > usually use a subject unless we want to stress it; it's much more
> > > common
> > > > to
> > > > > just have a nominal topic and then a comment, like in this example.
> > > > Because
> > > > > the government has a well established role in mobilizing the masses
> > to
> > > > > carry out actions like famine relief and flood prevention and so
> on,
> > > the
> > > > > agent and the "doing" don't need to be specified: everybody knows
> it
> > > was
> > > > > the government, even if that weren't clear in the context of a
> > > government
> > > > > report. So we simply say it's a happening.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that's changing. In fact, the government does relatively little
> > to
> > > > > alleviate poverty. There are regional enterprises, and there are
> > > private
> > > > > businesses and so on. After the Sichuan earthquake, my
> brother-in-law
> > > > > loaded up his SUV with bottled water and drove down to the
> earthquake
> > > > area
> > > > > to distribute it, and he says there was a huge traffic jam of other
> > > SUVs
> > > > by
> > > > > entrepreneurs like him who had exactly the same idea. And for
> > precisely
> > > > > this reason, we find that in the government report there is more
> and
> > > more
> > > > > explicit stipulation of the government's agency and of the
> effective
> > > > means.
> > > > > Instead of just happening, the government does things. There is a
> > > similar
> > > > > link between ideology and ideation in English if you think about
> it.
> > > When
> > > > > something GOOD happens, it's because somebody DID it, but when
> > > something
> > > > > bad happens, "Stuff happens".
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the point. We usually use "ideology" to mean something like
> > > > > conscious and deliberate ideation, usually of an intentionally
> > > deceitful
> > > > or
> > > > > misleading variety. I don't really accept that. It seems to me that
> > > > > "ideology" really is equivalent to ideation, that is, to the
> > > > communicative,
> > > > > representational function of speech, except that it is somewhat
> > larger,
> > > > > both because the interpersonal and the textual functions also
> encode
> > > > ideas
> > > > > and are also therefore ideological and because a lot of ideology is
> > > > simply
> > > > > NOT specifying things. For example, when you say "it's raining",
> you
> > > are
> > > > > conveying the idea that rain is an event that just happens, and is
> > not
> > > > > caused by any nameable entity. You don't normally say "it's
> birding"
> > or
> > > > > even "it's shining".
> > > > >
> > > > > Similarly, we usually use "prescriptivism" to mean something like
> > > > conscious
> > > > > and deliberate transformativism, usually of an authoritarian and
> > > > > dictatorial, and deceptive, sort. I don't really accept that
> either.
> > On
> > > > the
> > > > > contrary, what is really deceptive is to pretend that the process
> of
> > > > > education is meaningful without attending to its ultimate product.
> To
> > > me,
> > > > > "Eradicate Poverty Achieve Progress" is a perfect balance of
> process
> > > and
> > > > > product, and agency and effective means are only meaningful with
> > > respect
> > > > to
> > > > > both.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > Macquarie University
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
> > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi again,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > one thing that I find interesting in Jang's article, and which
> may
> > > > > connect
> > > > > > to comments in the other thread (by David, Haydi...) concerning
> > 'not
> > > > > > reducing the political to the personal',  is the issue of
> > *ideology.*
> > > > In
> > > > > > particular, Jang discusses and empirically examines what she
> coins
> > > as a
> > > > > > *Prescriptive* language ideology. As she describes in her paper,
> > and
> > > as
> > > > > any
> > > > > > educator will immediately recognise, this ideology exists as the
> > > > > > classroom's orientations to a correct/incorrect form. In her
> > article,
> > > > she
> > > > > > exhibits this through a number of sequences in which
> > teacher-student
> > > > and
> > > > > > student-student relations involve *evaluations* with regard to
> > > > > proficiently
> > > > > > using two rules: making connections between sentences and staying
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > topic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Jang shows, the prescriptive approach, which sets the final
> > > linguist
> > > > > > form as the criterion for positively or negatively evaluating any
> > > > > response
> > > > > > by any student, is such that more proficient readers/speakers
> will
> > > have
> > > > > > easier access to positive evaluation. The ideology here then
> exists
> > > as
> > > > a
> > > > > > regime of power and differential access, of inequality. By
> treating
> > > all
> > > > > > equally, we get to inequality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was thinking that it seems that the prescriptive approach does
> > > focus
> > > > on
> > > > > > the final product, whereas the sociocultural approach that Jang
> > > pursues
> > > > > and
> > > > > > Vygotsky first set forth has it that we should not focus on the
> > final
> > > > > > product but on its genesis, on the way the verbal form exists
> first
> > > as
> > > > a
> > > > > > social relation between people. Thus, in Episodes 1 and 2 in the
> > > > article,
> > > > > > if the participants had oriented towards a possible process of
> > > > > development,
> > > > > > Ji-Woo's responses would have been heard and responded to as
> > moments
> > > > in a
> > > > > > developmental trajectory. There would have been a very different
> > > social
> > > > > > situation in which work would have been directed to make visible
> > and
> > > > > > available the dynamics of Ji-Woo's learning process. But the
> > > > prescriptive
> > > > > > orientation evaluates and makes salient only deficiency and
> > > > achievement.
> > > > > On
> > > > > > the other hand, and consistent with those (e.g., Stetsenko,
> > Holzman)
> > > > who
> > > > > > have referred to Vygotsky's legacy as *revolutionary,* an
> > orientation
> > > > > > consistent with Vygotsky's teachings would bring with it not
> only a
> > > > > > different situation, but also an *emancipatory* one. Instead of
> > > > > inequality
> > > > > > brought about by treating all equally, we would have an
> > equalitarian
> > > > > > approach whose power resides in acknowledging and caring for
> > history
> > > > and
> > > > > > diversity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On a side thought, and connected to David's (Halliday's)
> > distinction
> > > > > > between ideational and interpersonal functions of language, I was
> > > > > wondering
> > > > > > what is the relation/difference between ideational and
> ideological.
> > > In
> > > > > the
> > > > > > article, it seems clear that the language related competence on
> > > putting
> > > > > > names to things and thereby building categories seems a condition
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > racial/ethnic tension to exist. But of course, the tension is a
> > > > > relational,
> > > > > > not just a lexical one. Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alfredo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
> > > edu
> > > > >
> > > > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> > > > > > Sent: 13 March 2017 18:48
> > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l]  Jang's SL Article Discussion
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ​Dear all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David has started some very interesting comments on the current
> > > article
> > > > > > for discussion on Tensions in Second Language Learning, which
> > attach
> > > > > again
> > > > > > here. Because some of these comments have been given at a
> different
> > > > > thread,
> > > > > > I am starting here a thread that shall more centrally concern
> > Jang's
> > > > > > article. I copy below all what David has so far written about the
> > > > > article.
> > > > > > I hope this will ​make it easy for Eun-Young and everyone else to
> > > > follow
> > > > > on
> > > > > > her article. I know ​Eun-Young is challenged time-wise by course
> > > > > > responsibilities and I hope this will make it easier for her.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eun-Young, David mentions an article from 2011. If you wanted,
> you
> > > > could
> > > > > > also share the PDF with us for background, although the current
> > > article
> > > > > > gives more than enough material for discussion, I think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alfredo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------David Kellogg wrote: ------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > t's very interesting to compare this paper with Professor Jang's
> > 2011
> > > > > > paper co-authored with Robert T. Jimenez:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eun-Young Jang & Robert T. Jiménez (2011) A Sociocultural
> > Perspective
> > > > on
> > > > > > Second Language Learner Strategies: Focus on the Impact of Social
> > > > > Context,
> > > > > > Theory Into Practice,
> > > > > > 50:2, 141-148, DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2011.558443
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In some ways, the papers are very similar--the data is identical
> in
> > > one
> > > > > > place (p. 42), and the conclusions are for the most part
> congruent.
> > > But
> > > > > > consider how different the titles are. "Impact" in one place, and
> > > > > "tension"
> > > > > > in the other.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is this note to the 1935 version of Vygotsky's report on
> > > > > preschools,
> > > > > > where Zankov, Elkonin and Shif complain about Vygotsky's idea
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > child directs his or her own learning before preschool, the
> > > environment
> > > > > > directs it after preschool, and preschool therefore represents a
> > kind
> > > > of
> > > > > > transitional stage. On the one hand, if the child is directing
> his
> > or
> > > > her
> > > > > > own learning, how can we say that the environment is the ultimate
> > > > source
> > > > > of
> > > > > > learning? And if the environment is the ultimate source of
> > learning,
> > > as
> > > > > > Vygotsky says, how can we say that the child is himself or
> herself
> > > part
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the environment?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Professor Jang gets around this problem just as Vygotsky
> > > > does--adroitly.
> > > > > On
> > > > > > the one hand, strategies are expanded to include "sets of actions
> > > > > performed
> > > > > > to deal with problems (perceived by the researcher, indicated by
> > the
> > > > > > learners)". On the other, contexts are expanded to include
> > > "pedagogical
> > > > > > assumptions, power relations, and interracial conflict".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this solution to the problem is the correct one: when we
> > > > consider
> > > > > > the relationship of the child and the environment, we cannot
> treat
> > it
> > > > > like
> > > > > > an unstoppable force meeting an unmoveable object. But for me
> that
> > > > means
> > > > > > that both the child and the environment have to be considered in
> > > > > "internal"
> > > > > > (that is, abstract, linguistic) terms. We can't think of speech
> as
> > > > > actions;
> > > > > > it's more useful to think of actions as speech. We can't think of
> > the
> > > > > > social situation of development as a material setting: it's a
> > > > > relationship
> > > > > > with others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Contrariwise, it seems to me that when we consider "racism", it
> is
> > > more
> > > > > > helpful to consider it in "external", that is, concrete,
> > > nonlinguistic
> > > > > > terms. In the 2011 paper, Professor Jang and her co-author are
> > > willing
> > > > to
> > > > > > openly criticize the idea that languages are learned in exactly
> the
> > > > same
> > > > > > way whether they are first or second languages. Here, they just
> > quote
> > > > the
> > > > > > teacher's comments on "mommy skills".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a very revealing quote. One thing it reveals is why it's
> > > probably
> > > > > not
> > > > > > helpful to refer to "racist" as an "insult" (p. 40) or to imply
> > that
> > > > > racism
> > > > > > and anti-racism is really just a matter of having the right
> > attitude
> > > > (as
> > > > > > the Republicans did in the Sessions debate or as Bernie Sanders
> did
> > > > when
> > > > > he
> > > > > > referred to Trump supporters who voted for Obama as "not having a
> > > > racist
> > > > > > bone in their bodies").
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can see that subjectively, the teacher is being
> > anti-racist--all
> > > > > > students, French, Turkish, Egyptian, Korean, use the same
> > strategies,
> > > > > just
> > > > > > like we all have mommies.She has all the right attitudes, and
> > > probably
> > > > > > doesn't have a racist bone in her body. But that doesn't diminish
> > by
> > > > one
> > > > > > jot the terrible damage that this kind of indiscriminate
> > > discrimination
> > > > > > does in the classroom.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > > Macquarie University
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------ On a related thread (Subject: Don't do
> > it),
> > > > > David
> > > > > > K. wrote:--------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems to me that we need to clearly distinguish between
> "racism"
> > > and
> > > > > > "racist sentiment". One of the interesting problems that comes up
> > in
> > > > > Eunhee
> > > > > > Jang's excellent article on second language learning strategies
> > from
> > > a
> > > > > > sociocultural point of view--a wonderful piece of "inside" work,
> > > > > > introducing racial issues into an area where they have never been
> > > > > seriously
> > > > > > discussed--is the use of "racist" (by the Korean kids to describe
> > > their
> > > > > > teacher) as an "insult".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I like the article. I think it's important work. But for that
> very
> > > > > reason,
> > > > > > I think that it's important to resist any attempt to reduce
> > "racist"
> > > > to a
> > > > > > personal insult. I think we've seen very very clearly, both in
> the
> > > > > Sessions
> > > > > > confirmation hearing, and in the discussion of Trump's own
> > > anti-semitic
> > > > > > behavior--that this kind of reduction of the political to the
> > > personal
> > > > is
> > > > > > precisely the kind of reducing the sociocultural to the cognitive
> > > that
> > > > > > Professor Jang is trying to resist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > > Macquarie University
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------- Idem as above-------------------------
> > > > > > ---------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of the interesting aspects of Professor Jang's paper is that
> it
> > > is
> > > > > > about adolescents who are in the process of forming concepts, but
> > who
> > > > are
> > > > > > not there yet. And one way in which an adolescent forms a concept
> > > about
> > > > > the
> > > > > > difficult concept of a social contract, of citizenship, of
> > > nationality
> > > > is
> > > > > > pseudoconceptual: it is based on discussing "actual" perceptual
> > > > > differences
> > > > > > between races. This might seem irrelevant to current political
> > > > discourse.
> > > > > > Unfortunately, it isn't.​
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Jang, Eun-Young. Ph.D.
> > > >
> > > > Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Education
> > > >
> > > > Seoul National University of Education
> > > >
> > > > Seoul, S. Korea
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jang, Eun-Young. Ph.D.
> >
> > Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Education
> >
> > Seoul National University of Education
> >
> > Seoul, S. Korea
> >
>
>