[Xmca-l] Re: "Context" or Object of activity
David Kellogg
dkellogg60@gmail.com
Fri Feb 2 14:01:19 PST 2018
Rod:
Yes, that's the issue I was raising. What KIND of context--a context of
situation, in which exophora, visiographic representation, and sense can
predominate? Or a context of culture, in which endophora, concepts, and
signification rule? But of course in between them there is a continuum, not
a vaccuum. And in between segments of the continuum, there are gaps and
crises to be navigated by the developing child. (One of these, the moment
when a child realizes that a question has to be answered rather than
repeated, is discussed in my forthcoming article in your journal, but there
is another even more interesting one I am writing about--the moment when a
child realizes that you can switch names with your little sister, and even
call you mother "Daddy"!)
It seems to me that this issue is clearly linked to the issues that Mike
was raising.
a) Mike says that there must be some relationship between context (of
situation, of situation-type, of culture) and social situation of
development. I think that a social situation of development is an age
specific situation-type: that is, it is the ensemble of social relations
between the child and the environment that are specific to a given
developmental age. I don't think these are simply terminological variants,
because--first of all--the SSD is part of Vygotsky's pedological
periodization scheme, and therefore age specific, and--secondly--the SSD is
not a specific situation or a culture (that is, the ensemble of all
possible situations for a particular speech community) but something in
between (though obviously the SSD of a child in early years is closer to
the context-of-situation pole and the SSD of the adolescent is closer to
the context-of-culture pole).
b) Mike says that Vygotsky can be read as a contextualist (and not a
mechanist or even an organicist). I think he can, but not if we consider
context as an undifferentiated category, which is what Andy is doing when
he claims that context is always unbounded. On the contrary--it's much more
useful to think of context as always bounded, but whose boundaries go from
all of the actual, sensuous boundaries of the material-situational setting
(which is the case for a child before he or she learns to speak) to the
highly abstract boundaries we see when we consider a context of culture as
all of the things which may be potentially chosen as meaningful (as I said,
there are real boundaries here too--e.g. the category of a Proper Verb
corresponding to proper nouns, which isn't meaningful in our culture,
although it could be. But the boundaries are constantly changing because
our ability to mean is constantly expanding (and by the way the fact that
our ability to mean is constantly expanding makes no sense unless you
accept that our ability to mean does have boundaries).
c) Mike says that context includes elements of phylogenesis alongside
sociogenesis and of course "microgenesis" (I confess that I don't like the
term microgenesis, because I think it confuses what the Gestaltists called
Aktuelgenese with what Halliday calls "logogenesis",w hich is the expansion
of meaning in real time. To return to the point you are making about the
richness of the tapestry of context that a French speaker has when she or
he has grown up near the Musee de Cluny (the unicorns!) or the Bayeux
tapestry (but I hear this is going to tour England now). A good tapestry
has at least two different kinds of threads (the old ones actually used
many layers, like a palimpsest, and some layers were designed for
washability while others were for strength). Unlike me, Vygotsky DOES use a
lot of etymology in his discussion of how children develop new forms of
meaning (e.g. his discussion of Mondegreens in Chapter 6 of HDHMF).
Ruqaiya Hasan doesn't praise Vygotsky not for the usual thing that people
see in him--a firm grasp of the obvious, and even tautological, facts of
the sociogenesis of mind. Instead she appreciates what she calls (somewhat
unfortunately) his "biogenetic" approach: his ability to see development
from the phylogenetic, sociogenetic, and logogenetic angle all at the same
time, without ever forgetting that although they are all one and the same
thing--just different forms of change over time--they can still look
very very very different and consequently mean very different things to the
child and to the ensemble of social relations in which the chld is
enmeshed. I think Hasan appreciated that this was not only Marxism but
genius Marxism. One of the things I really didn't agree with her on was
Salman Rushdie, an author I still love and that she had a strong dislike
for. In Midnight's Children, Rushdie talks about the magicians in the
market of Mumbai (who I can still remember from when I was a little child
in what was called Bombay). The magicians are all members of the Indian
Communist Party, so they have this uncanny, but self-critical, ability to
magically bend reality to their will without ever forgetting that magic
doesn't really exist.
But you said that already, didn't you?
dk
David Kellogg
Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'
Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Rod Parker-Rees <
R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I am lurking on the periphery of this discussion about context but I
> wanted to step in on the etymology (which you do not normally argue from).
>
> As I understand it, context is rooted in weaving, not writing, 'woven
> together' rather than (associated) 'with text'. The question then is
> whether we can separate out what is and what is not interwoven with
> whatever it is we are trying to understand and to what extent such
> decisions are 'arbitrary'. Perhaps, as in physics, we can normally get by
> quite happily with a Newtonian model of discrete 'billiard balls' knocking
> against each other n (near enough) orderly ways so in 'normal' interactions
> we can work on the assumption that ideas, objects, actions and people are
> 'closed off' discrete systems. But it doesn't hurt to keep in mind that
> this is a useful fiction - that the interweaving is more intricate than
> day-to-day dealings can handle.
>
> I learned French at school and got to the point where I was able to live
> and work in France and (eventually) cope with the flow of chat around a
> dinner table but I was very much aware of the fact that the words I was
> using did not have the depth of context that they had for native speakers.
> I had not grown up hearing French songs and nursery rhymes, I had not been
> surrounded by the flow of gossip, news and shared interests which would
> fine tune my sensitivity to the nuances associated with particular words,
> turns of phrase and topics. In other words, I knew the language well enough
> to get by in the more public (znachnie based) realms of 'business' but I
> knew that I did not know it well enough to cope with more intimate
> (smysl-y) ways of speaking - I would not do well at translating poetry or
> love-letters.
>
> Every time we try to set boundaries around what it is we are studying -
> to make claims about what is and is not relevant, I think we would do well
> to use indefinite rather than definite articles - 'A' unit of analysis
> (from among an infinite number of possible units), rather than 'THE' unit
> of analysis. Of course that is not to say that different 'tribes' cannot
> specify their own rules for what, for THEM, should and should not be
> included - but they should not forget that this is A choice, not THE choice.
>
> All the best,
>
> Rod
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
> Sent: 31 January 2018 21:16
> To: Alexander Surmava <alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>
> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>; Alfredo
> Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Context" or Object of activity
>
> Welcome back, Sasha. I missed you!
>
> Not A but B. Not this, but that. Not wanting to be a Marxist, but really
> being one. Not arbitrarily semantifying, but actually acting upon objects.
> Not a passive envelope of context but a real object of activity. Not the
> arbitrariness of boundaries set by linguists but the naturalness of limits
> set by practical actions. It's a very convincing way to argue...but only so
> long as I can recognize myself in A, and recognize you in B.
>
> I can't. I don't think that Vygotsky only wanted to be a Marxist and
> Leontiev really was one. Nor do I think that people semantify
> arbitrarily--I think that language is a way of acting on "layers of air"
> according to the natural properties of the object, and I think that the
> relationship between wording and meaning is even more natural; I certainly
> think that human language use is part of nature, since humans themselves
> are part of nature. I think the way that I defined context, as all the
> elements of a social situation which may be transformed into meaning, is
> not at all passive; on the contrary, it presupposes sensuous activity more
> than an expression like "object of activity" does (and that is why the
> objectivist interpretation of Activity Theory is so prevalent). Therefore,
> I don't think that the boundary of abstraction that I want to set between a
> context and what Ruqaiya Hasan calls "material situational setting" is
> arbitrary at all: on the contrary, I think that it is a way of solving the
> problem that Andy raised (assuming that Andy really does want to solve the
> problem of including the explanans in the explanandum). If we say that a
> context is an abstraction from the world, and that it is made along lines
> that are laid down by language in culture and by text in a situation, then
> we don't have the problem of including the whole world in our
> representation of the world (which is a problem that is symmetrical to the
> one which Vygotsky, as a vigilant Marxist, raised--the problem of including
> the whole child in our representation of the child).
>
> To look at it from the other side, I don't think that Leontiev was really
> a Marxist, because I don't think that a Marxist would ever reject the idea
> that development has to take place through crises, as Leontiev did
> (Problems of the Development of Mind, p. 399). I don't think that there is
> any such thing as "actually acting on objects" that doesn't involve some
> semantic representation of that object--cutting down a tree, for example,
> involves knowing what a tree and an axe are, and what they are both used
> for. Our languages--all human languages--have lexical ways of representing
> unique objects, but no lexical ways of representing unique processes (that
> is, we have proper nouns that we capitalize, like Sasha and David and LSV
> and Moscow, but we have no proper verbs that we capitalize, like "The Way I
> Struck the Tree With My Axe at Precisely 5:56 in the Morning on February
> First 2018"). I don't think this is an unbounded abstraction from the
> world, nor do I think it is arbitrary. It seems perfectly bounded and
> natural to me, and so I think the fit between context and semantics is a
> natural one and not an arbitrary one: it is the attempt to say "Just do
> it!" that makes an arbitrary mess of human activities.
>
> Yes, I do recognize that the language used by linguists--including
> "context"--is not a familiar one for you or for Andy or for other people on
> this list (that's why I drew your attention to the word "text" in
> context--I don't normally argue from etymology, as Mike knows!). Yes, I am
> perfectly reconciled to yelling incomprehensible things into a void as a
> result. But I am not reconciled to giving up the word "context" or to
> separating it from language use. When a man wants to cut down a tree, it's
> very hard to separate him from his axe by simply repeating "not an axe but
> an object of activity".
>
>
> David Kellogg
>
> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'
>
> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
>
> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
>
>
> David Kellogg
>
> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'
>
> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
>
> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Alexander Surmava <
> alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...for me "context" is an abstraction from the world: a
> > > context of culture is the ensemble of relations in the world which
> > > we choose to semanticize in a given language, and a context of
> > > situation is the ensemble of relations in the world which we choose
> > > to semanticize in a single text.
> >
> >
> > You can attribute any meaning to a theoretically sterile concept of
> > context, as you like "semanticize" it.
> > From the point of view of Marxism, in the logic of which Vygotsky
> > WANTED to theorize, and Leontiev and Ilyenkov really theorized, the
> > subject does not arbitrarily "semantify" his objects, that is, natural
> > things, things created by human labor and social relations, but
> > actually act with them in accordance with their nature.
> >
> > Context is not a magical entity that affects the subject "placed in
> > this context" in an incomprehensible magical way. Anything can
> > "influence" the subject if and only if the subject acts with this
> > object. In other words, to be exposed you must act yourself.
> > Therefore, from an extremely broad and theoretically vague idea of the
> "context" (as something that "surrounds"
> > the passive subject and for some reason affects it), we are forced to
> > isolate what the subject really interacts with, what he is working on,
> > that is, we must distinguish the concept of the object of activity,
> > the real PREDMET DEYATELNOSTI. Everything that surrounds the subject,
> > but with which he actively does not interact, any "context" with which
> > the subject is not active does not exist for the subject at all, just
> > as before the discovery of Becquerel the radioactive rays did not
> > exist for human consciousness or "psyche", although, of course really
> > "surrounded" him whenever he had carelessness to touch the salts of
> > uranium or radium or to carry their crystals in his pocket.
> > All this applies not only to the "hard things" surrounding us, but
> > also to such soft and delicate matter as social relations. Those
> > relationships that the subject is not able to at least try to somehow
> > change by their own activity in them, for the subject as it does not
> > exist at all, they, as Spinoza would say, are not adequately realized.
> > Of course, the child is able to remember such little things as words
> > (signs), say that now the president of the United States is Donald
> > Trump. But really realizing the beauty of this political (or medical)
> > fact, he will only be able to get involved in real relations with the
> > political machine of the state through participation in elections or
> > other forms of political activism, when his own activity will face
> > fences erected by an elderly gentleman with an outstanding hairdo not
> > only on the Mexican border, but, say, between him and the health care
> system.
> > Therefore, practical implications for the practical teacher and
> > psychologist are not numerous "contexts", the boundaries of which can
> > only be established by the arbitrariness of the authors of treatises
> > on the context, but the real objects, what our activities really deal
> > with, what it stumbles upon and what it comes to.
> >
> > Sasha
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *От:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > *Кому:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > *Отправлено:* среда, 31 января 2018 3:11
> > *Тема:* [Xmca-l] Re: Bronfennbrenner discussion
> >
> > You can say that "context" is an "abstraction from the world" if you
> > like. But as Mike has shown, it is an unbounded abstraction. E.G. a
> > new twist in Cold War diplomacy can skittle a 4thD project and/or open
> > a new project for kids in San Diego and Moscow.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Blunden
> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > On 31/01/2018 10:52 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> > > Andy--I don't understand how "context" means "the world".
> > > That's what Malinowski thought. But I'm a linguist, and for me
> > > "context" is an abstraction from the world: a context of culture is
> > > the ensemble of relations in the world which we choose to
> > > semanticize in a given language, and a context of situation is the
> > > ensemble of relations in the world which we choose to semanticize
> > > in a single text. But even if you are not a linguist, doesn't a
> > > "context" always mean something that goes with a text, like chili
> > > con carne goes with meat?
> > >
> > > dk
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > >
> > > Recent Article in /Mind, Culture, and Activity/ 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
> > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
> > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'
> > >
> > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
> > >
> > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
> > > <http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> > > <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike, I have never been a reader of Bronfennbrenner, so my
> > > comments may be immaterial here and I am happy if you and
> > > others simply let them go through to the 'keeper (i.e.,
> > > catcher).
> > >
> > > You will recall that in my "Interdisciplinary" book I
> > > appreciated your work, but criticised it for your claim to
> > > include "context" in the "unit of analysis" on the basis
> > > that "context" was an "open ended totality" and to include
> > > it in the "unit of analysis" was to destroy the very
> > > idea of
> > > a "unit."
> > >
> > > A point of agreement between us though has been the
> > > need for
> > > what we both call a "meso-level" unit between the
> > > individual
> > > action and the world, and that my use of "project" to name
> > > this meso-level unit, and that the 5thD project was such a
> > > unit, persisting for more than an individual's
> > > lifetime and
> > > escaping the control of the founder, but yet falling short
> > > of macro-level units like the economy, science, the
> > > nation, etc.
> > >
> > > Yjro is quite right when he said "the context is the
> > > activity,", or rather "the activities." "The activity"
> > > is of
> > > course the project. But here Yrjo is being true to
> > > analysis
> > > by units. He is suggesting that the world is best
> > > conceived
> > > as being made up of activities (I would say "projects").
> > >
> > > To claim to include the "context" (which as you know means
> > > "the world") *in* the unit which makes up the world,
> > > is the
> > > same logical fallacy as asking whether "I always lie" is a
> > > lie, and destroy the whole point of analysis by units,
> > > which
> > > is to approach understanding infinite totalities by
> > > means of
> > > little things that you can grasp, which none the less
> > > characterise the whole. This unit, projects, is mediating
> > > between the individual action and the world.
> > >
> > > The problem is, I think, Yrjo's redefinition of "unit of
> > > analysis" as (according to some of his students) "the unit
> > > to be analysed," which I characterise as that list you
> > > make
> > > up, of everything you're going to put in your suitcase,
> > > which you might need on your journey. This was *not*
> > > Vygotsky's idea, or that of Goethe, Hegel or Marx.
> > >
> > > Whatever the problem, what happens depends on the context.
> > > How do you conceive of the context? by units. The
> > > context is
> > > a totality not part of a unit.
> > >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Andy Blunden
> > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > > <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
> > > On 31/01/2018 9:45 AM, mike cole wrote:
> > > > Hi Jon-
> > > >
> > > > There are obviously a ton of issues to discuss
> > > in your article. I
> > > > guess that my paper on using his ideas as part of
> > > the process of designing
> > > > activities for kids in university-community
> > > partnerships is
> > > > an example of inappropriate mis-appropriations. I'm
> > > not sure. If I need a
> > > > defense its that I thought the ideas as I understood
> > > them useful, but I was
> > > > not testing his formulations in the same way you are
> > > concerned to do, but
> > > > using (some of) them for planning, analysis, and
> > > interpretation.
> > > >
> > > > While trying to sort that out, I'll just make a
> > > couple of observations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Jonathan Tudge
> > > <jrtudge@uncg.edu <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Yes, Martin, there always is culture within the
> > > microsystem--it's the only
> > > >> place in which culture is experienced.
> > > Microsystems are always embedded
> > > >> within culture (I'd add always within multiple
> > > cultures, but I don't think
> > > >> that Urie ever wrote that).
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >>
> > > >> Jon
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >>
> > > >> Jonathan Tudge
> > > >>
> > > >> Professor
> > > >> Office: 155 Stone
> > > >>
> > > >> Our work on gratitude:
> > > http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/
> > > <http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/>
> > > >>
> > > >> A new book just published: Tudge, J. & Freitas, L.
> > > (Eds.) Developing
> > > >> gratitude in children and adolescents
> > > >>
> > > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-gratitude-
> > > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-gratitude->
> > > >> in-children-and-adolescents-flyer.pdf>,
> > > >> Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
> > > >>
> > > >> My web site:http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge
> > > <http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge>
> > > >>
> > > >> Mailing address:
> > > >> 248 Stone Building
> > > >> Department of Human Development and Family Studies
> > > >> PO Box 26170
> > > >> The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
> > > >> Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
> > > >> USA
> > > >>
> > > >> phone (336) 223-6181
> > > >> fax (336) 334-5076
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Martin Packer
> > > <mpacker@cantab.net <mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Wow, very graphic! At first I thought my
> > > microsystem had exploded! :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The 20,000 dollar question for me has always been,
> > > why is culture in the
> > > >>> macrosystem? Is there no culture in my here-&-now
> > > interactions with other
> > > >>> people? (Well, perhaps in my case not!)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Martin
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Tudge
> > > <jrtudge@uncg.edu <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Greetings, Martin,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I hope that this works (taken from a powerpoint
> > > presentation).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Jon
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Jonathan Tudge
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Professor
> > > >>>> Office: 155 Stone
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Our work on gratitude:
> > > http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/
> > > <http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> A new book just published: Tudge, J. & Freitas,
> > > L. (Eds.) Developing
> > > >>>> gratitude in children and adolescents
> > > >>>>
> > > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-
> > > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev->
> > > >>> gratitude-in-children-and-adolescents-flyer.pdf>,
> > > >>>> Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> My web site:http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge
> > > <http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Mailing address:
> > > >>>> 248 Stone Building
> > > >>>> Department of Human Development and Family Studies
> > > >>>> PO Box 26170
> > > >>>> The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
> > > >>>> Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
> > > >>>> USA
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> phone (336) 223-6181
> > > >>>> fax (336) 334-5076
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Martin Packer
> > > <mpacker@cantab.net <mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Hi Jon,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Would it be possible for you to post here the
> > > figure you mentioned in
> > > >>> your
> > > >>>>> message, page 69 of your book?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Martin
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or
> > > Dr. Lowie or discuss
> > > >>>>> matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I
> > > become at once aware that
> > > >> my
> > > >>>>> partner does not understand anything in the
> > > matter, and I end usually
> > > >>> with
> > > >>>>> the feeling that this also applies to myself”
> > > (Malinowski, 1930)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Jonathan Tudge
> > > <jrtudge@uncg.edu <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Hi, Mike,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> There are a couple of problems with the 2005
> > > book. One is that the
> > > >>>>> papers
> > > >>>>>> are drawn from UB's writings from the 1970s to
> > > the early part of this
> > > >>>>>> century. As is true of Vygotsky's writings
> > > (and probably any
> > > >> theorist
> > > >>>>> who
> > > >>>>>> wrote over a significant span of time) it's
> > > really important to know
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>> date of publication. The other problem is that
> > > at least one of the
> > > >>>>>> chapters is incomplete, and there are errors in
> > > at least one other.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> As for the concentric circles or the
> > > matrioshka--they're both
> > > >> excellent
> > > >>>>>> examples of how powerful metaphors can go
> > > powerfully wrong! Both are
> > > >>>>>> utterly misleading, in that they really focus
> > > attention on the
> > > >>> different
> > > >>>>>> layers of context (and even then don't make
> > > sense--the mesosystem
> > > >>>>> consists
> > > >>>>>> of overlapping circles, as in a Venn diagram).
> > > Nonetheless, you're
> > > >>>>>> right--UB continued to use the metaphor in his
> > > final publications.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> However, his theory really developed a lot from
> > > the 1970s onwards
> > > >> (see
> > > >>>>> Rosa
> > > >>>>>> and Tudge, 2013; Tudge, 2013), and from the
> > > early 1990s onwards
> > > >>> "proximal
> > > >>>>>> processes" were the centerpiece of his
> > > Process-Person-Context-Time
> > > >>> (PPCT)
> > > >>>>>> model. These are essentially the everyday
> > > activities in which
> > > >>> developing
> > > >>>>>> people engage, and they always and only occur
> > > in microsystems.
> > > >>> However,
> > > >>>>>> what goes on in microsystems is always
> > > influenced by (a) the person
> > > >>>>>> characteristics of the developing individuals
> > > of interest and those
> > > >> of
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>> others with whom they interact, (b) the
> > > characteristics of the
> > > >> context,
> > > >>>>>> both proximal (as in the nature of the
> > > microsystem in which those
> > > >>>>>> activities are occurring) and distal (the
> > > macrosystem, which for him
> > > >>> was
> > > >>>>>> culture, whether considered at the level of
> > > society or within-society
> > > >>>>>> cultural groups), and (c) time, which includes
> > > both the need to study
> > > >>>>> over
> > > >>>>>> time (longitudinally) and in time (the
> > > prevailing social, economic,
> > > >> and
> > > >>>>>> political climate). A graphic representation
> > > that better reflects
> > > >>> his
> > > >>>>>> developed position than the concentric circles
> > > can be found in Tudge
> > > >>>>>> (2008), on page 69.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I actually think that he rather dropped the
> > > ball on culture,
> > > >>>>>> unfortunately. I really like his writings on
> > > this in his 1979 book
> > > >> and
> > > >>>>> in
> > > >>>>>> his 1989 (or 1992) chapter on ecological
> > > systems theory. Reading his
> > > >>>>> 1998
> > > >>>>>> (or 2006) handbook chapters you'll find
> > > virtually no mention of the
> > > >>>>> impact
> > > >>>>>> of culture (or macrosystem) despite drawing on
> > > Steinberg et al.'s
> > > >>>>> research
> > > >>>>>> on adolescents from different racial/ethnic groups.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Don't feel bad, though, if you have always just
> > > thought of
> > > >>>>> Bronfenbrenner's
> > > >>>>>> theory as one of concentric circles of
> > > context--you're no different
> > > >> in
> > > >>>>> that
> > > >>>>>> regard from just about everyone who has
> > > published an undergrad
> > > >> textbook
> > > >>>>> on
> > > >>>>>> human development, not to mention a majority of
> > > scholars who have
> > > >> said
> > > >>>>> that
> > > >>>>>> they've used UB's theory as foundational for
> > > their research (see
> > > >> Tudge
> > > >>> et
> > > >>>>>> al., 2009, 2016).
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> If anyone would like a copy of any of these
> > > papers, just send me a
> > > >>>>> private
> > > >>>>>> message to jrtudge@uncg.edu
> > > <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H. (2008). *The everyday lives
> > > of young children:
> > > >>>>>> Culture, class, and child rearing in diverse
> > > societies.* New York:
> > > >>>>>> Cambridge University Press.
> > > >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B.,
> > > & Karnik, R. B.
> > > >> (2009).
> > > >>>>>> Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s
> > > bioecological theory of human
> > > >>>>>> development. *Journal of Family Theory and
> > > Review, 1*(4), 198-210.
> > > >>>>>> - Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2013). Urie
> > > Bronfenbrenner’s
> > > >> theory
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>>> human development: Its evolution from ecology
> > > to bioecology.
> > > >> *Journal
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>>> Family Theory and Review, 5*(6), 243–258.
> > > DOI:10.1111/jftr.12022
> > > >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner.
> > > In Heather Montgomery
> > > >>>>>> (Ed.), *Oxford bibliographies on line:
> > > Childhood studies*. New York:
> > > >>>>>> Oxford University Press.
> > > >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas,
> > > E. A., Cao, H., Liang,
> > > >>> Y.,
> > > >>>>>> Li, J., & O’Brien, L. T. (2016). Still misused
> > > after all these
> > > >> years?
> > > >>> A
> > > >>>>>> re-evaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s
> > > bioecological theory
> > > >> of
> > > >>>>> human
> > > >>>>>> development. *Journal of Family Theory and
> > > Review*, *8,* 427–445.
> > > >> doi:
> > > >>>>>> 10.1111/jftr.12165.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Jon
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Jonathan Tudge
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Professor
> > > >>>>>> Office: 155 Stone
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Our work on gratitude:
> > > http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/
> > > <http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> A new book just published: Tudge, J. & Freitas,
> > > L. (Eds.) Developing
> > > >>>>>> gratitude in children and adolescents
> > > >>>>>>
> > > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-
> > > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev->
> > > >>>>> gratitude-in-children-and-adolescents-flyer.pdf>,
> > > >>>>>> Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> My web
> > > site:http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge
> > > <http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Mailing address:
> > > >>>>>> 248 Stone Building
> > > >>>>>> Department of Human Development and Family Studies
> > > >>>>>> PO Box 26170
> > > >>>>>> The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
> > > >>>>>> Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
> > > >>>>>> USA
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> phone (336) 223-6181
> > > >>>>>> fax (336) 334-5076
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:20 PM, mike cole
> > > <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Hi Jon --
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Nice to see your voice!
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I only have Urie's 2005 collection, *Making
> > > Human Beings Human, *to
> > > >>>>> hand. I
> > > >>>>>>> checked it out
> > > >>>>>>> to see if the terms activity and context
> > > appeared there. Only sort
> > > >> of!
> > > >>>>>>> Activity is in the index, but context is not
> > > (!). I attach two pages
> > > >>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>> the book for those interested (and able to
> > > read my amateur
> > > >>>>>>> photos). Here it seems that activity and
> > > context coincide at the
> > > >> micro
> > > >>>>>>> level, but perhaps only there?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Concerning embedded circles and context. It
> > > turns out that the
> > > >> person
> > > >>>>> who
> > > >>>>>>> induced Sheila and me to write a textbook on
> > > human development was
> > > >> U.
> > > >>>>>>> Bronfenbrenner. And this same U.B. discussed
> > > with us how to
> > > >> represent
> > > >>>>> his
> > > >>>>>>> perspective circa 1985, pretty early in the
> > > task of writing the
> > > >> first
> > > >>>>>>> edition. His use of matroshki (embedded dolls)
> > > as a metaphor and his
> > > >>>>>>> rhetoric at the time (and in 2005 as well) invites
> > > >>>>>>> a concentric circles representation. We
> > > discussed other ways of
> > > >> trying
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>> represent the idea and he
> > > >>>>>>> said that our representation came as close as
> > > he could figure out.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> In the 2005 book he refers to my work as
> > > combining a Vygotskian
> > > >> notion
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>> context with an anthropological one (p. 126),
> > > and uses the term
> > > >>>>> "ecological
> > > >>>>>>> context." I assume that most of my Russian
> > > colleagues would argue
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>> LSV
> > > >>>>>>> used the concept of "social situation of
> > > development," not context.
> > > >> I
> > > >>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>> no idea how he would respond to Yrjo's
> > > declaration that the activity
> > > >>> is
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> context, but it does not seem too far off from
> > > what is written on
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>> pages
> > > >>>>>>> attached.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Perhaps someone on xmca who is skilled at
> > > searching texts in
> > > >> cyrillic
> > > >>>>> could
> > > >>>>>>> search for his use of the term, context. I
> > > have always been curious
> > > >>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>> what such a search would turn up, but lack the
> > > skill
> > > >>>>>>> to carry out the query.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> And perhaps you have written something about
> > > the mistake of
> > > >>> interpreting
> > > >>>>>>> U.B.'s notion of contexts using embedded
> > > circles we could learn
> > > >> from??
> > > >>>>>>> Certainly the passages on p. 46 remind me of
> > > the work of Hedegaard
> > > >> and
> > > >>>>>>> Fleer, who also draw upon U.B.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> mike
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> <PPCT (Tudge, 2008, p. 69).pptx>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________
> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http:
> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>
> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for
> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it.
> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts
> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails
> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility
> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied
> by an official order form.
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list