[Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day

[Peter Smagorinsky]

As someone with chronic severe anxiety who has experienced panic attacks and takes a daily medication and additional pills before flying on planes and giving public talks, I would agree with Chuck’s assessment.

From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> On Behalf Of Charles Bazerman
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 7:57 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day

Looking back at my article I think I stated my point rather crudely, which was only made to open up a space for introducing Sullivan's concept of anxiety.  Of course Vygotsky recognized frailty and limits, as he devoted much of his work to defectology/special ed trying to understand and help people in very trying conditions.Some of his testing procedures were even used to assess psychiatric conditions.  Further he lived through times of multiple great difficulties, and he himself was sickly.  Further those of us who affiliate with work of course recognize human difficulties and frailties.  We in fact tend to be quite sensitive about that.
What I should have said was that Vygotsky approached human development positively and optimistically, looking at potentials and mechanisms for growth, rather than focusing on the obstacles people felt within themselves. This characterized his approach to disabilities, where he considered how people could grow under whatever set of conditions they experienced ad how others could support that growth.  The obstacles he did discuss were largely those of how the disabled were treated by others, inhibiting the opportunities to growth.
So the point I was trying to make was that he did not offer any extended analysis that revealed mechanisms of psychological difficulties, such as anxiety--or at least that I was aware of.  Sullivan, however, did offer an extended analysis of anxiety, and presented it as one of the major components of the organization of the self.  He would agree with you that anxiety could be quite an obstacle to development, interfering with our emotional and cognitive activity, even immobilizing us or fostering delusions, Confronting and alleviating anxiety was an important process to facilitate growth.   But that alleviation was not through denial of the anxiety but through recognition, social support that eased anxiety in relations which one had previously found fraught, and acting with focus despite the anxiety, in the long term extending the domains we can act successfully in and decreasing inappropriate anxiety.

Chuck
----
History will judge.


On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:39 PM Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu<mailto:annalisa@unm.edu>> wrote:

Hi Charles,



I have to thank you for posting your article, "Anxiety in Action."



I just read it quickly and would like to go over it again, but I can say it provoked many thoughts and questions for me.



One gnawing assumption, which I am not clear is actually an assumption widely held, is that Vygotskian theory holds that all humans are competent and cooperative in social interaction (This list being a perfect example of what that is not! 😊 When we see more women and POC participating upon the list, and even novices and newcomers feeling welcome to participate, I don't think this will be caused of a list-wide motivation to prove the impression that Vygotskian theory might give off, that being competence and cooperation in social interaction!)



I made this mistake of idealizing the theory this way when doing an interview of Edwin Hutchins for a paper in Vera's class (It was about scientific creativity and he was a dream subject for my paper!) He in no uncertain terms said that cooperation (and even good will) are not what we can (or should) expect in interaction and learning (of course he was speaking about distributed cognition specifically, but his approach is informed by Vygotsky, among other theorists, which concerns sociality of human thought, among other things). Learning includes conflict which is the other side of cooperation, but also that individuals can do the right thing while the society does the wrong thing (he pointed to the 2008 financial meltdown as a case in point), meaning that individuals can think they are cooperating when the system arising from that cooperation does not.



So much for singing Kumbayah around the campfire!



Also this made me consider is how it is that we adults assume we are finished products (or maybe just finished, in the sense we are done for!) once our biological development has matured to our prime, and that children are these fragile blank slates mirroring and combining and internalizing those reflections from our societies (I don't think Vygotsky thought that) developing at the speed of light into adults who we hope will be significantly competent and cooperative.



But this is an illusion isn't it? We are unfinished persons until that time in which our lives are actually over. We will never be authorities, even if we think we are (As my grandmother would say, "The audacity of some people's bombacity!" – a malaprop in itself)!



And yet, while living our lives, we seem to have a self-insight of continuity that we are somehow stable in ourselves and this stability is good, it provides us authority and competence (and other existential trinkets). If we don't feel that way, we want to. Why? Given the flux of human experience in all societies and throughout history, inter-personally or any other mode of relating (to environment, to nature, to animals, to art, etc), it is curious how we possess this feeling that there is a stable continuity within. How is that possible?



I suggest that that stability-of-self is not something to attribute to anything that changes, but perhaps mis-identifying this reference point of stability to a changing aspect of self is what causes our existential anxieties.



Here we get to a point where some people might say we are (as-if) walking on hot coals with regard to a changing self, that this stability (that we seek) is an illusion itself like the way the flicker of the film frame provides the illusion of continuity despite movement in the frame (and it feels urgent because we are walking on hot coals of life and living, after all). Others have different ideas about where the self belongs, which I suggest has nothing to do with mind and body development, but that mind and body development reveal in a reflective manner that stability. Some mind-body complexes reflect better than others (and at different points in time, since we are moody creatures), and this might even echo the concept of "arete" (excellence) of the Ancient Greeks.



So yes, we hope to have well-developed minds and bodies in the social and cultural historical environments that we populate, and we hope they will be cooperative and we will be competent to meet the circumstances at hand.



You also raised the point in the paper that we sometimes orient our study of the mind from the standpoint of pathology and I admit that I've always had a hard time with that habit as well. I wonder if an orientation to anxiety might also fall into that same habit. I'm not sure, just thinking out loud.



Where I was getting to with my post, I think, though I may not have realized my question clearly at the time, is how we do not consider positive regard as a necessary component of healthy development. That instead development just happens no matter what. I don't know that that worldview or stance ("it just happens") is motivated from anxiety or conflict avoidance. Though I agree that anxiety does warp any person and no one is free from the dynamics of anxiety.



What I might say is that the strength of development (occurring in tandem with plenty of positive regard) allows us to withstand anxiety producing events we may encounter. But if anxiety overwhelms us beyond what we can understand (developmentally or cognitively or existentially) pathology ensues after a prolonged period of suffering through it. I just don't think anxiety should be seen as an ingredient of development, but as a symptom of developmental "weakness". When we feel strong (and are strong) in ourselves, we don't feel anxious. When we are not up to the task, we can still perform our best when we are relaxed and unencumbered by anxiety (which I suppose is what we call confidence, not necessarily competence). Consequently, it seems to me that it is the absence of anxiety that allows us to develop.



If we remove the anxiety, then what is left?



Kind regards,



Annalisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180808/deb44f2b/attachment.html