[Xmca-l] Re: CHT vs. CHAT

Fri Dec 11 04:21:10 PST 2020

Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella
category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai
specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ‪Yrjö
Engeström's AT.

Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed
numerous units of analysis.  On that basis my inference is that you are
questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with
word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the
case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of
awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle
for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and
recollect because this seems to be their principal medium.

Best,
Huw

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 01:51, Larry Smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >From Francine:
>
> If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and
> Nikolai as* Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity
> Theory*.
>
> Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The
> Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding
> paragraphs in "Thought and Word"  (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed
> in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation *Thought and Language*, p. 88 and
> p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on
> p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like
> sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The
> Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in
> Volume 3 of *The Collected Works* , 1997). The word is a unit that is a
> synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's
> writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph *he chose* to finalize
> his legacy in 1934.
>
> If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his
> writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote.
> Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in
> Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no
> connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a
> coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper
> that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's
> own words).
>
> Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the
> 'word' as unit of analysis?
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V.
>
> Henry and venerable others,
>
> I might add that *Imagination* is something like a self-imposed zone of
> proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to
> act upon that which is imagined.
>
> Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the
> *only* unit *for* analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that
> hard-wired about activity as the unit *for* analysis? That it depends
> upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between
> CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit *for* analysis?
>
> For example, how does one use activity as the unit *for* analysis if one
> is studying imagination? Or language? or culture?
>
> If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them
> be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they
> are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their
> notes? their lyrics?
>
> How might that work?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annalisa
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 9, 2020 12:04 PM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V.
>
>
> *  [EXTERNAL]*
> Anthony,
> The excerpts were excellent! I simply wasn’t up to listening to the entire
> conversations of Huw and Nikolai.
> Even before I saw the excerpts I was thinking about the CHT vs. CHAT issue
> you discussed with Nikolai and the issue of Active Orientation that Huw
> talked about.
> I wonder if Huw would agree with me that Active Orientation is about the
> imagination. It is thinking that makes thought real, epistemic. As in an
> active imagination. Fevered even.
> What’s missing in CHT is the purpose of development: Activity. CHAT
> complements Vygotsky’s work by making Activity is the unit of analysis.
> Imagination is Activity in a way that simple thinking is not. ZPD, as a
> Vygotsky-inspired concept, rather than what he may actually have
> written—and there is great controversy on this—has within it Activity as
> Problem Solving. I think this is what Dewey was talking about.
>
> I want also to say that Helen Worthen’s conversation with Anthony was
> really Rising to the Concrete. Huw and Nikolai were insightful but Helen
> got the Narrative right on what its like to work. Huw and Nikolai worked so
> hard at True Concepts, in the Vygotskian sense, but the Perizhvanie of
> Helen on what it’s like to work was spot on.
>
> IMHO
> Henry
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2020, at 9:19 PM, Anthony Barra <anthonymbarra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Good evening ~ some people have enjoyed these, so here are a few more:
>
> "Development of Epistemological Forms," a recent interview with Huw Lloyd
> - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/dbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Ts7E_iQ8MOwA-6wLhoyIO2JbHFI9_nNzSGZE3aPSHgyiNikoaaVpw5GovON-Gg1HlYYlHQ$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/dbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!TSZeCGjNy0b8YGDmeRZYQpGQgw4h_JLjj1zua46-yYhLrRCgM6eDaA0rPrBwtYZTC0Nx6g$>
>
> I also enjoyed chatting with Nikolai Veresov last week: "A chat about CHAT
> (and CHT)" - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/ebc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Ts7E_iQ8MOwA-6wLhoyIO2JbHFI9_nNzSGZE3aPSHgyiNikoaaVpw5GovON-Gg0F7SBQcQ$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/ebc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!TSZeCGjNy0b8YGDmeRZYQpGQgw4h_JLjj1zua46-yYhLrRCgM6eDaA0rPrBwtYbyVFenGw$>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swA_bFIeOes__;!!Mih3wA!TSZeCGjNy0b8YGDmeRZYQpGQgw4h_JLjj1zua46-yYhLrRCgM6eDaA0rPrBwtYbjfpCIjw$>
>
> Hopefully, one or both will bring some December enjoyment.
>
> Anthony Barra
>
> P.S. If curious, a two-minute snippet of each is here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/cbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Ts7E_iQ8MOwA-6wLhoyIO2JbHFI9_nNzSGZE3aPSHgyiNikoaaVpw5GovON-Gg1BcL4vgA$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/cbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!TSZeCGjNy0b8YGDmeRZYQpGQgw4h_JLjj1zua46-yYhLrRCgM6eDaA0rPrBwtYZb5niJjA$>
> and here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/4bc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Ts7E_iQ8MOwA-6wLhoyIO2JbHFI9_nNzSGZE3aPSHgyiNikoaaVpw5GovON-Gg223IoE1w$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/4bc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!TSZeCGjNy0b8YGDmeRZYQpGQgw4h_JLjj1zua46-yYhLrRCgM6eDaA0rPrBwtYbS7ZgO5g$>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201211/999a782a/attachment.html 