[Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural psychology" ?
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sat May 23 20:39:50 PDT 2020
Without equating Hegel and Vygotsky (!) ...
* visualise Vygotky's famous triangle: A_-X-_B
* note that A has a direct unmediated link to B
* note that A has a mediated link to B via X
In what sense is it not logical to say that double
stimulation represents cognition and perception as equally
both mediated and immediate?
What logical sense could you give to the idea that the
relevant cognition is X% mediated and Y% immediate?
By the way, the other occasion in which Hegel uses the
expression, "neither, in Heaven nor on Earth ...":
"Instead of speaking by the maxim of Excluded Middle
(which is the maxim of abstract understanding) we should
rather say: Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven
nor on Earth, neither in the world of mind nor of
nature, is there anywhere such an abstract 'either-or'
as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is
concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The
finitude of things will then lie in the want of
correspondence between their immediate being, and what
they essentially are."
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!XO9CPnmUmQMkJj_SSaQgq4XMiUp7VsdomA83SNtk6cPNI89H3qyLyug3u-Y0x-yy0I0lAA$ >
Home Page <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!XO9CPnmUmQMkJj_SSaQgq4XMiUp7VsdomA83SNtk6cPNI89H3qyLyug3u-Y0x-yis8QzUw$ >
On 24/05/2020 7:34 am, David Kellogg wrote:
> I didn't mean to confuse you, Annalisa. But Andy and and
> the various philosohers on this list have used expressions
> that I in turn find very confusing and I suppose I have
> also confused in my own turn. It is one of the hazards of
> putting together people from different backgrounds without
> proper intellectual social distancing.
>
> Here are two statements from philosophy that linguists
> like me find confusing:
>
> a) Everything is one hundred percent mediated and one
> hundred percent unmediated.
>
> b) (I)t is argument about the beginnings of philosophy,
> not psychology, and certainly about the distinction
> between basic and higher mental functions.
>
> I find the first statement confusing, because it seems to
> me to rule out "more" or "less" as applied to mediated
> and unmediated. This rules out the possibility that
> children develop more mediated functions (e.g. volitional
> attention, semanticized perception, logical memory, verbal
> thinking) on the basis of less mediated functions
> (involuntary attention, optical/aural perception, eidetic
> memory, and purely practical intelligence). Andy has now
> amended this to two separate yes/no questions ("Is
> objectivity mediated for the subject?" "One hundred
> percent yes." "Is objectivity unmediated for the subject?"
> "One hundred percent yes"). By separating it into two
> different clauses, Andy is reproducing the grammar of the
> original Hegel in dialogic form, but he is also
> acknowledging the inadequacy of the translation that he
> announced he would not discuss because it is too clear.
>
> I find the second statement even more confusing: I am not
> sure how one can discuss the distinction between basic and
> higher mental functions without beginning psychology, but
> you can apply to Andy for details on what exactly he meant.
>
> Vygotsky (and Vera John-Steiner, and the other leading
> representtive of the New Mexico school which you are
> associated with) believed in higher and lower functions.
> This was common among psychologists at the time, but it
> was not a way of quantitatively comparing subjects. It
> was usually interpreted in a dualistic way--like a two
> story house, with immediate perception on the lower floor
> (animals and infants) and higher perception on the upper
> (angels and aduls), immediate attention (like when you
> hear thunder and jump) on the lower floor and voluntary
> attention (the ability to listen to somebody's meanings
> and edit out all the pauses and fillers) on the upper.
>
> Vygotsky pointed out that the two were just as linked as
> they were distinct (that was what Ruqaiya Hasan always got
> out of Vygotsky and she was right). Vygotsky also thought
> that all the rooms in the supposed upper floor were
> semantically joined through word meanings (because word
> meaning participates in the formation of all higher
> functions) creating a unified system. This is not true of
> lower functions: involuntary attention and practical
> intelligence are not developmentally linked the way that
> voluntary attention and verbal intelligence are, We know
> that Vygotsky criticized his own early work for seeing the
> higher and lower functions in the two-story house way and
> not seeing that the higher functions are systemically
> linked. A lot of my own interest in systemic-functional
> linguistics, an approach that has nothing to do with the
> sentence diagramming you refer to, is about seeing those
> higher functions as systemically linked through wording
> (lexicogrammar), and not simply through word meaning
> (lexis). The latter was Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky,
> and Andy has strongly objected to it as treating Vygotsky
> as a linguist.
>
> Brabantio: What profane wretch art thou?
> Iago: I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter
> and the Moor are making the beast with two backs.
> Brabantio: Thou art a linguist.
> Iago: You are---a philosopher.
>
> (Othello, Act I Scene I, but perhaps my
> logical/verbal memory misgives me there at the end...)
>
> David Kellogg
> Sangmyung University
>
> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam: A manual and a
> manifesto.
> Outlines, Spring 2020
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!XO9CPnmUmQMkJj_SSaQgq4XMiUp7VsdomA83SNtk6cPNI89H3qyLyug3u-Y0x-wcZGaqJw$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!RH6LAnBsef6doJ6EFER3t2j96hvVmo059l2sBPsmjgn5k_DATUUAK4ZP39b0ytp83Zymrg$>
>
> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: /L.S. Vygotsky's
> Pedological Works/ /Volume One: Foundations of Pedology/"
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!XO9CPnmUmQMkJj_SSaQgq4XMiUp7VsdomA83SNtk6cPNI89H3qyLyug3u-Y0x-wfrkYZrw$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!RH6LAnBsef6doJ6EFER3t2j96hvVmo059l2sBPsmjgn5k_DATUUAK4ZP39b0ytqwIQuWfQ$>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 4:56 AM Annalisa Aguilar
> <annalisa@unm.edu <mailto:annalisa@unm.edu>> wrote:
>
> Hi David and Andy,
>
> When I read this:
>
> "b) Chiaroscuro paintings are equally both dark
> and light in Caravaggio's time and in our own."
>
>
> I would have interpreted this to mean that paintings
> are 50% dark and 50% light. Not 100% dark and 100%
> light. I suppose this depends upon where one places
> the parentheses. I can't remember exactly how to
> diagram sentences, and I would be difficult for me to
> do that here in an email client, but what of this:
>
> (Chiaroscura (paintings)) are (equally both) ((dark)
> and (light)) (in (Carraviagio's (time)) and (in (our
> (own [time]))).
>
> or
>
> (Chiaroscuro (paintings)) are (equally (both ((dark)
> and (light))) (in Caravaggio's (time)) and (in (our
> own ([time]))).
>
> I would never have presumed something could be 100% X
> and 100% Y unless we were talking about two separate,
> but joined, entities.
>
> In that case I'd interpret this to mean that the
> definition of Chiaroscuro paintings no matter what
> historical period have two types, what might be called
> white paintings and what might be called black
> paintings. Say, were there an opposite of Film Noir,
> called Film Blanc. And these were related paintings
> because of similar painting methods and composition,
> and even subject matter, but one is predominantly dark
> the other predominantly white.
>
> Of course nothing like this does exist in Art History,
> but it is conceivable to discuss painting genres in
> just this way.
>
> ---
>
> Then, I also wanted to point out that psychological
> can be biological (as in what the brain and nervous
> system, etc does to take in perceptual data, and
> respond accordingly, such as with walking, balancing a
> cup in one's hand not to spill the contents, or
> vigilance to protect one's children while walking
> through a crowded airport). This include the limbic
> system, yes?
>
> And psychological can be introspective (I'm not sure
> whether it is the proper word, forgive me, but I mean
> the subjective experience of the person who retrieves
> memories, lays down neuroses to compensate from past
> traumas, enjoy fantasies or imaginations, or simply
> possesses a more unobstructed sense of self (than a
> less unobstructed sense)).
>
> If one can accept this dualism in the human body it is
> possible for experience to be 100% mediated and 100%
> unmediated, depending upon which system is being
> activated and how the two are working in tandem or
> separately, or whether one is overpowering the other.
>
> Isn't it so?
>
> Also, I have a curious question to ask. What is the
> dividing line between higher function and lower
> function? Are there classifications?
>
> Is this scenario possible:
>
> In Subject A there are 20 lower functions and 5 higher
> functions
> In Subject B there are 20 lower functions and 20
> higher functions
> In Subject C there are 10 lower functions and 20
> higher functions.
> In Subject D there are 5 lower functions and 5 lower
> functions
>
> Taking age out of the equation, in that we suppose
> they are all the same age, and also for control, they
> have similar environments, caregiving, nutrition, and
> education, etc. I would ask this:
>
> Does a lower function imply a corresponding higher
> function? In that lower function 1x will in time with
> proper environmental inputs develop into the higher
> function 1X? Or can 2 lower functions only produce 1
> higher function?
>
> Or can 3 lower function produce in varying proportions
> 5-8 higher functions.
>
> Such as function 1ab + 2cd creates function 1ac, 2ac,
> 1bd, 2abd, 1bcd, 2ad, 1ad, etc.
>
> In Subject A, can we assume that there is potential to
> develop 15 (or more) additional functions in the
> subject's future?
>
> In Subject B, can we assume that there can be still
> further development beyond 20 higher functions that
> grow out from the original 20 lower ones?
>
> In Subject C, can we assume that superior plasticity
> has afforded "more" development from less available
> resources, such as a person with a disabiilty (like
> blindness, deafness) has developed additional higher
> functions most others would never develop, say a keen
> sense of smell, haptic ability, or visual acuity?
>
> In Subject D, can we assume that no further
> development can occur because there is not enough
> "material" present in the lower functions for any
> extended development into higher functions, such as an
> infant suffering from brain asphyxiation during birth.
>
> Just trying to understand how one is slicing the
> orange, or peeling it, etc.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annalisa
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of
> David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com
> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 22, 2020 3:39 PM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural psychology" ?
>
> * [EXTERNAL]*
>
> But this is not the exact quote. It is only a
> translation. The exact quote is this:
>
> ("...) daß es nichts gibt, nichts im Himmel oder in
> der Natur oder im Geiste oder wo es sei, was nicht
> ebenso die Unmittelbarkeit enthält als die
> Vermittlung, so daß sich diese beiden Bestimmungen als
> ungetrennt und untrennbar und jener Gegensatz sich als
> ein Nichtiges zeigt." (There is nothing given, neither
> in heaven nor in nature nor in mind nor in wherever it
> may be, which is not equally the unmediated contain
> alongside the mediated, so that both of these two
> determinations (i.e. determining something as
> unmediated or as mediated--DK) prove to be inseparable
> and inextricable, and their contrast (or their
> opposition--DK) proves nul."
>
>
> What's the difference between the exact quote and the
> translation? As I pointed out to Andy, the translation
> puts "equally" and "both" in the same clause, while
> the original German has them in two different clauses.
> Compare:
>
> a) Chiaroscuro paintings are both dark and light, and
> this was equally true for Caravaggio as for us.
>
> b) Chiaroscuro paintings are equally both dark and
> light in Caravaggio's time and in our own.
>
> Statement a) is true enough, although as Mike points
> out it is the beginning of a concrete genetic analysis
> and not the end. But statement b) is utterly false: it
> puts an end to all genetic analysis and abolishes
> development altogether. It says, uselessly, that all
> paintings are 100% dark and 100% light and so the only
> genetic analysis possible is one of changing
> self-consciousness, either in the painter or the
> viewer. This is an idealist dialectic, and it is
> certainly not a historical one.
>
> Similarly, it is one thing to say that all
> psychological functions are both mediated and
> unmediated, and this is equally true for lower
> functions as it is for higher functions. For example,
> when I look at a painting by Caravaggio or a film by
> Derek Jarman, the rod cells in my retina and my optic
> nerve are mediating the experience as well as my
> cerebral cortex and my biographical knowledge of
> Caravaggio.
>
> But it's very different to say that all psychological
> functions are equally both mediated and unmediated,
> or100% mediated and 100% unmediated. In addition to
> the arithmetical absurdinty, this does not allow me to
> distinguish between lower and higher psychological
> functions.
>
> (And I do think this is how Andy gets his notion that
> when two things are different we cannot say that one
> is more developed than the other. Yet higher
> psychological functions do indeed presuppose lower
> functions but not the other way around. Andy calls
> this difference and not development; I call it equally
> both difference and development.)
>
>
> David Kellogg
> Sangmyung University
>
> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam: A manual and
> a manifesto.
> Outlines, Spring 2020
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!XO9CPnmUmQMkJj_SSaQgq4XMiUp7VsdomA83SNtk6cPNI89H3qyLyug3u-Y0x-wcZGaqJw$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!UhX3qSLCbdS5rxC7Q9WFIHPghpcB2oEb5UNjVMhBS8xyhYxH_Pn8J--D4dz7kemhahe23g$>
>
> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: /L.S. Vygotsky's
> Pedological Works/ /Volume One: Foundations of Pedology/"
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!XO9CPnmUmQMkJj_SSaQgq4XMiUp7VsdomA83SNtk6cPNI89H3qyLyug3u-Y0x-wfrkYZrw$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!UhX3qSLCbdS5rxC7Q9WFIHPghpcB2oEb5UNjVMhBS8xyhYxH_Pn8J--D4dz7kelgaaoaZw$>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 2:13 PM Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> And it is worth noting that Hegel wrote this in
> the 1810s simply on the basis of logical criticism
> of Kant and Jacobi (a contemporary sharing some
> views with Descartes). And yet it took more than a
> century (if I'm not mistaken) to make its way into
> hard science. Here's how he explains it:
>
> § 66
> That said, we continue to stand by the
> position that immediate knowing is to be
> taken as a fact. With this, however, the
> consideration is directed towards the
> field of experience, to a psychological
> phenomenon. – In this respect, it should
> be noted that it is one of the most common
> experiences that truths (which one knows
> very well to be the result of the most
> intricate and highly mediated
> considerations) present themselves
> immediately in the consciousness of
> someone conversant with such knowledge.
> Like everybody else who has been trained
> in a science, the mathematician
> immediately has at his fingertips
> solutions to which a very complicated
> analysis has led. Every educated person
> has immediately present in his or her
> knowing a host of universal viewpoints and
> principles that have resulted only from
> repeated reflection and long life
> experience. The facility we have achieved
> in any sphere of knowing, also in fine
> art, in technical dexterity, consists
> precisely in having those sorts of
> familiarity, those kinds of activity
> immediately present in one’s consciousness
> in the case at hand, indeed, even in an
> activity directed outwards and in one’s
> limbs. – In all these cases the immediacy
> of knowing does not only not exclude its
> mediation; to the contrary, they are so
> connected that immediate knowing is even
> the product and result of knowing that has
> been mediated.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social Movements
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!V1lohvu0fySbbUkCcYcJRCbGDu-27I-V6eExTcBvLglpwRB4sUpmOZ-FCZ_JuZI9AVk-hA$>
> Home Page
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!V1lohvu0fySbbUkCcYcJRCbGDu-27I-V6eExTcBvLglpwRB4sUpmOZ-FCZ_JuZLU_NXvXg$>
>
> On 22/05/2020 1:59 pm, mike cole wrote:
>> Both HAVE TO BE present at once, Andy or there is
>> no perception.
>> Mike
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:55 PM Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, last week in our Hegel Reading Group we
>> read the section in the Shorter Logic,
>> following his critiques of Kant and
>> Descartes, Hegel explains how thought is both
>> immediate /and/ mediated, and even over Zoom
>> I could see the clouds gradually receding
>> from my young students' eyes. All of a sudden
>> the whole fruitless argument between
>> scepticism and dogmatism, relativism and
>> historicism, fell away. The most difficult
>> thing to grasp was how perception was not
>> just immediate and mediated, but both were
>> essentially present in the same moment, how
>> without the cultural training of the senses
>> the brain could not make any sense at all of
>> the nervous stimulation of the organs of
>> sight, etc.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> PS. the exact quote from Hegel is: "there is
>> nothing, nothing in heaven, or in nature or
>> in mind or anywhere else which does not
>> equally contain both immediacy and mediation"
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbegin.htm*0092__;Iw!!Mih3wA!XO9CPnmUmQMkJj_SSaQgq4XMiUp7VsdomA83SNtk6cPNI89H3qyLyug3u-Y0x-yIAyvc0w$
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbegin.htm*0092__;Iw!!Mih3wA!TUMhXu_xWvwV4y6fvpgv4VHU2relV4Y4V5cWZTRpCZSmXSJxKlYezU-yXkbrDDuPh_oxBg$>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!TUMhXu_xWvwV4y6fvpgv4VHU2relV4Y4V5cWZTRpCZSmXSJxKlYezU-yXkbrDDuiF8_dnA$>
>> Home Page
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!TUMhXu_xWvwV4y6fvpgv4VHU2relV4Y4V5cWZTRpCZSmXSJxKlYezU-yXkbrDDty4Bji_w$>
>>
>> On 22/05/2020 9:20 am, mike cole wrote:
>>> This is a point I have struggled to make for
>>> many years, Andy. I didn't know I was
>>> quoting Hegel:
>>>
>>> Hegel:
>>> 'Everything is both immediate and mediated."
>>>
>>> The challenge is to rise to the concrete
>>> with this abstraction or its just la la la.
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:42 PM Andy Blunden
>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, Annalisa, I agree that
>>> Science is a moral practice, but that is
>>> not what is at issue here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Two issues concern me with what you have
>>> said: (1) the question of "who decides?"
>>> and (2) the quantification of
>>> development as in "more evolved"
>>> bringing with it the implication of
>>> moral value attached to development.
>>>
>>>
>>> (1) The discovery of the "social
>>> construction of reality" was an
>>> achievement of the Left, the
>>> progressives, with people like the
>>> Critical Psychologists, the theorists of
>>> postmodernism and post-structural
>>> feminists in the 1970s an 80s, who
>>> exposed how taken-for-granted facts
>>> along with the truths of Science were on
>>> closer inspection ideological products
>>> of dominant social groups. Of course,
>>> how reality is /seen /is an inseparable
>>> part of how reality /is/. This insight
>>> led to a range of powerful theoretical
>>> and practical critiques of all aspects
>>> of society. Feminists offered an
>>> alternative way of interpreting reality
>>> as a powerful lever for changing that
>>> reality by undermining patriarchal
>>> structures and certainties. So far so
>>> good. But today, in 2020, it is not
>>> progressives who are asking "who
>>> decides?" and calling into question the
>>> very idea of truth and fact: it is
>>> Donald Trump and Rudi Giuliani. Quite
>>> honestly, this outcome was always
>>> implicit in the postmodern and
>>> poststructuralist critique. Or, could I
>>> say: "Donald Trump is a more evolved
>>> form of Judith Butler" if I thought in
>>> those terms, which I don't.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hegel takes up this problem with the
>>> maxim: "Everything is both immediate and
>>> mediated." Yes, social interests
>>> dominant in a certain social domain by
>>> definition determine what is true in
>>> that domain (though remember, every
>>> social domain is finite and has its
>>> boundaries). But that is not just by
>>> saying something about an/independently
>>> existing/ reality which can be subject
>>> to any number of /alternative/
>>> representations (as Kant would have it),
>>> but rather the dominant social interests
>>> /determine that reality itself/. They do
>>> that both /immediately /and /through the
>>> ideal representation/ of that reality
>>> which is *part of that reality*. You
>>> can't "decide" by a purely discursive
>>> moves - you have to /change /that
>>> reality. You do that with the weapons of
>>> both theoretical and practical critique.
>>>
>>>
>>> What this means is that you can study
>>> the documents (assuming you weren't
>>> personally present) of some past dispute
>>> and see with your own eyes how and why
>>> some people formulated new word
>>> meanings, and began to use these new
>>> word meaning(s) in their own
>>> communication, and thereby facilitated
>>> others from using this word meaning, and
>>> the relevant concepts, in their work,
>>> and so on.
>>>
>>>
>>> (2) As perhaps I have illustrated in my
>>> example above that there is no
>>> implication of "higher" in development.
>>> In my own education, it was Sylvia
>>> Scribner's "Uses of History" (1985)
>>> which explained this to me. "Higher"
>>> implies comparison and comparison in
>>> turn implies /interchangeability/. For
>>> example, if I was considering whether to
>>> emigrate to the US or France, I might
>>> consider public safety as a metric and
>>> decide that France was superior to the
>>> US and make my decision accordingly. Or,
>>> I might consider job availability for an
>>> English-speaking monoglot like me as the
>>> metric, and decide that the US was
>>> superior to France. But to decide that
>>> the US is superior to France or vice
>>> versa without the choice and the
>>> relevant metric is the moral judgment
>>> which neither you nor I find acceptable.
>>> They're just different.
>>>
>>>
>>> Understanding word meanings and concepts
>>> entails an analysis of *both *how the
>>> word is used in the field in question,
>>> and the history as to how it came to be
>>> so. Using the concept of "germ cell," I
>>> can work my way back and forth through
>>> an etymological field, forensically,
>>> like a detective, until I can connect
>>> the particular use of the word which
>>> emerged as a germ cell at some earlier
>>> time, in some situation where the
>>> implication of choosing that word
>>> meaning was abundantly clear to all,
>>> which allows me to see *why* someone
>>> felt the need (now forgotten) to
>>> introduce the word meaning and what it's
>>> absence would mean here and now, where
>>> it is already taken for granted.
>>>
>>>
>>> My apologies for the unacceptably long
>>> message, which is much against my own
>>> mores, but I don't know how to clarify
>>> these issues more succinctly.
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> Hegel for Social Movements
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!TLrWUBWNIMJR-d4Rr1HJ5aNy8a9feC14rEE8Y9KK_yg-3NYAubzMD2iHXcVRpSlw_w_wdw$>
>>> Home Page
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!TLrWUBWNIMJR-d4Rr1HJ5aNy8a9feC14rEE8Y9KK_yg-3NYAubzMD2iHXcVRpSkhfCnwZw$>
>>>
>>> On 20/05/2020 3:51 am, Annalisa Aguilar
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Andy,
>>>>
>>>> I suppose the issue about being on a
>>>> branch of evolution has more to do with
>>>> who decides what the branch is. Is it
>>>> time? or is it topical? or is it based
>>>> upon the interlocutors?
>>>>
>>>> If we say one word usage is more
>>>> "evolved" than another, I suppose I am
>>>> just pushing back on that because who
>>>> decides what is more evolved?
>>>>
>>>> Forgive me, but can we ever say that if
>>>> something is more "evolved" it is
>>>> actually better? What do we actually
>>>> mean when we say something is evolved?
>>>>
>>>> What if one term lasts over a longer
>>>> arc of time than another usage? It
>>>> seems if we use the evolution rubric,
>>>> it would be considered more "fit" than
>>>> the one that is changing over the same
>>>> period of time.
>>>>
>>>> I do find it helpful that you to bring
>>>> up the germ cell and how that concept
>>>> pertains to analysis. That makes a lot
>>>> of sense to me. I'm glad to know that
>>>> to assign the parentheses does entail
>>>> an ideological move, and that that
>>>> can't be escaped. As long as we know
>>>> what the ideology is, there is
>>>> transparency in our analysis.
>>>>
>>>> I do think moral evaluations are worth
>>>> including on all discussions, not
>>>> necessarily to forbid discussions or
>>>> scientific pursuits, but to use as
>>>> landmarks to keep our bearings.
>>>> Scientific concepts have a way of not
>>>> being inclusive of contexts (i.e.,
>>>> lived experiences) or being grounded,
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps this is what made Vygotsky such
>>>> a humane and compassionate scientific
>>>> thinker is that he could understand how
>>>> scientific concepts can be abusive
>>>> tools for oppression. Anchoring them in
>>>> lived experience shows their validity.
>>>> Would this be a fair statement to you,
>>>> Andy?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>>>> <andyb@marxists.org>
>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 17, 2020 7:23 PM
>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural
>>>> psychology" ?
>>>>
>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa, "where does history start"?
>>>> Effectively there is no starting point,
>>>> and the choosing of a starting point is
>>>> always an ideological move. Foucault
>>>> does this to great effect. Ilyenkov
>>>> deals with this in his book "The
>>>> Abstract and Concrete in Marx's
>>>> Capital" and explains the need for what
>>>> he calls the "logical-historical
>>>> method." To short circuit the
>>>> complexities of reading Ilyenkov, in
>>>> CHAT we rely on the identification of
>>>> the unit of analysis or "germ cell" to
>>>> anchor our historical investigation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Sociogenesis" is just Latin for
>>>> "social development," the word I used.
>>>> But if you are going to ascribe a moral
>>>> value to "evolution" and then reject
>>>> the concept on that basis, you'd better
>>>> also reject "development" and all the
>>>> "geneses" and evolution of species by
>>>> natural selection and all modern
>>>> biology while you are at it.
>>>> Alternatively, you could choose *not*
>>>> to ascribe moral values to scientific
>>>> concepts, then the whole of science is
>>>> open to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>> Hegel for Social Movements
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!VTGuGy4gvXj-8N5E9YCj2IevXlVoBhK7UBQ37lx10IRWhO4lMbcXmdD-gzoCEFYW2qyYWA$>
>>>> Home Page
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!VTGuGy4gvXj-8N5E9YCj2IevXlVoBhK7UBQ37lx10IRWhO4lMbcXmdD-gzoCEFZ5oaoZdg$>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/05/2020 3:25 am, Annalisa Aguilar
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Andy (& VO's),
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that that was my point, that
>>>>> we cannot capture everything in the
>>>>> word to describe the theory. And that
>>>>> is because of the limit of our language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even where genesis actually is, where
>>>>> something starts can be difficult to
>>>>> pinpoint. I mean where does History
>>>>> actually start?
>>>>>
>>>>> These words that you mention
>>>>> phylogenesis, ethnogenesis,
>>>>> ontogenesis, are words that are like
>>>>> brackets of a pair of parentheses. Who
>>>>> decides where to put them? (And why
>>>>> not sociogenesis?)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure it's correct to say the
>>>>> choice of a word locates the user on a
>>>>> branch of a cultural evolutionary
>>>>> tree, because then that starts to mean
>>>>> that one speaker is more evolved than
>>>>> another based on the use of a word.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be better to say that the
>>>>> choice of a word locates the user to a
>>>>> particular context. I could live with
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *From:*
>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 9:27 PM
>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural
>>>>> psychology" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>>>
>>>>> You're never going to succeed in
>>>>> formally capturing the full scope of
>>>>> the theory in a word, Annalisa.
>>>>> "socioculturahistoricalinguapparatical
>>>>> activity theory" still leave out
>>>>> biology and Darwin, which is a part of
>>>>> our theory, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is sometimes said that human
>>>>> development is the coincidence of
>>>>> *four* processes: *phylogenesis
>>>>> *(i.e., evolution of the species),
>>>>> cultural development (*ethnogenesis*,
>>>>> the development of technology *and
>>>>> *language), *social development* (one
>>>>> and the same culture has different
>>>>> classes and political groups side by
>>>>> side) and *ontogenesis *(even twins
>>>>> can grow up very differently according
>>>>> to the experiences (/perezhivaniya/)
>>>>> they go through). I tried to describe
>>>>> this in:
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/ontogenesis.htm__;!!Mih3wA!XO9CPnmUmQMkJj_SSaQgq4XMiUp7VsdomA83SNtk6cPNI89H3qyLyug3u-Y0x-wlscBjFg$
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/ontogenesis.htm__;!!Mih3wA!Vn9T05o4yQ8JmcN8k0Rcq65ZDZvXCxCkPwjrS8BQz_aRy-V218xJbfgO-7EiQaXB3YgOwg$>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But if you look into the history of a
>>>>> word what you will inevitably find is
>>>>> that at some point (in time and social
>>>>> space) there was some dispute, and
>>>>> this dispute was either (1) resolved
>>>>> by both parties agreeing and marking
>>>>> this agreement by the coining of a new
>>>>> word meaning or the dropping of a word
>>>>> meaning altogether, or (2) there is a
>>>>> split and one or both sides of the
>>>>> split adopt a word meaning which
>>>>> distinguishes them from the other side
>>>>> (structuralism's favourite trope) or
>>>>> variations on the above scenarios.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So the choice of a word tends to
>>>>> locate the user on a branch in the
>>>>> cultural evolutionary tree.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> Hegel for Social Movements
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!Vn9T05o4yQ8JmcN8k0Rcq65ZDZvXCxCkPwjrS8BQz_aRy-V218xJbfgO-7EiQaXzee78rQ$>
>>>>> Home Page
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!Vn9T05o4yQ8JmcN8k0Rcq65ZDZvXCxCkPwjrS8BQz_aRy-V218xJbfgO-7EiQaXY03UVbw$>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/05/2020 11:56 am, Annalisa
>>>>> Aguilar wrote:
>>>>>> David K & VO's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What pray-tell is an anthropologue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am divided (pun intended) about
>>>>>> saying that sociocultural = social +
>>>>>> culture, when they are intertwined
>>>>>> holistically. To me, sociocultural
>>>>>> points to a space in between, or
>>>>>> perhaps better said to a context of
>>>>>> interactions between individuals (who
>>>>>> form a society) that are easily
>>>>>> accepted among them and practiced
>>>>>> over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can conceptually parse out the
>>>>>> social and the cultural, but don't we
>>>>>> do that because of the words and not
>>>>>> because of the ostensible reality
>>>>>> going on interactionally? Can we
>>>>>> always understand something by
>>>>>> dissecting it into parts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, this seems to be the limit of
>>>>>> language, not of the conceptual
>>>>>> context or content.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a sense to use the term
>>>>>> "sociocultural" is to grab the tail
>>>>>> of the tiger. The tail of the tiger
>>>>>> is still the tiger, but perhaps a
>>>>>> more manageable one than to grab its
>>>>>> head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps this is why Vygotskians just
>>>>>> call themselves Vygotskians to align
>>>>>> themselves with the source of the
>>>>>> first theories rather than to later
>>>>>> conceptions and other developments
>>>>>> (i.e. Leontiev, etc). Just thinking
>>>>>> out loud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another argument is that if we want
>>>>>> to be all inclusive, then we have to
>>>>>> include tool-use, as it's not the
>>>>>> social, the culture, and the history,
>>>>>> but also the language and tools used.
>>>>>> I realize some practitioners would
>>>>>> say that language is no different
>>>>>> than a tool, but I feel language is
>>>>>> different, even though it may have a
>>>>>> similar cognitive response in the
>>>>>> mind as would using a tool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Activity suggests tool use, though
>>>>>> not always. Consider dance, or
>>>>>> storytelling, or going for a walk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>> socioculturahistoricalinguapparatical
>>>>>> activity theory???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes! I am writing this a little
>>>>>> tongue in cheek. I hope you do not mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Annalsia
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> *From:*
>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> on behalf of David Kellogg
>>>>>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 6:14 PM
>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>>>>> Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re:
>>>>>> "sociocultural psychology" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a very domain-specific umbrella,
>>>>>> like those cane-brollies that go with
>>>>>> a bowler. "Sociocultural" is strongly
>>>>>> preferred used in second language
>>>>>> acquisition, thanks to the influence
>>>>>> of Merrill Swain, Jim Lantolf and
>>>>>> Matthew Poehner; I have never seen
>>>>>> "cultural historical" used in this
>>>>>> literature. But "cultural-historical"
>>>>>> is similarly preferred in psychology
>>>>>> and anthropology, thanks to the
>>>>>> influence of J.V. Wertsch, Mike
>>>>>> Cole, Martin Packer and Andy
>>>>>> Blunden; that's really why we are
>>>>>> having this discussion on what
>>>>>> "socio-cultural" might mean on a list
>>>>>> largely populated by
>>>>>> roving psychologists and nomadic
>>>>>> anthropologues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interestingly, the Francophones
>>>>>> prefer "historico-cultural", using
>>>>>> the argument that you can understand
>>>>>> the process without the product but
>>>>>> not the product without the process.
>>>>>> I stopped using "sociocultural"
>>>>>> because I thought it was redundant,
>>>>>> but now I am really not sure of this:
>>>>>> it seems to me that the relationship
>>>>>> is a similar one--you can study
>>>>>> society as process without studying
>>>>>> its cultural product (e.g. as
>>>>>> demographics, economics, statistics)
>>>>>> but you can't really study culture
>>>>>> without some understanding of the
>>>>>> process of its formation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a similar disagreement in
>>>>>> systemic functional linguistics
>>>>>> between Halliday and Jim Martin over
>>>>>> the term "socio-semiotic". Martin
>>>>>> said that it was redundant, because
>>>>>> there couldn't be any semiotic
>>>>>> without society. Halliday rather
>>>>>> flippantly replied that ants had a
>>>>>> society without a semiotics, and at
>>>>>> the time it seemed to me that this
>>>>>> was a non sequitur, first of all
>>>>>> because ants don't really have a
>>>>>> society in our sense (precisely
>>>>>> because there is no such thing as an
>>>>>> ant history separate from
>>>>>> phylogenesis on the one hand and
>>>>>> ontogenesis on the other) and
>>>>>> secondly because ants most definitely
>>>>>> do have a semiotics, albeit one based
>>>>>> on chemistry and not perception as
>>>>>> ours is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me, in retrospect, that
>>>>>> the relationship between the semiotic
>>>>>> and the social is much more like the
>>>>>> relationship between the social and
>>>>>> the biological, or even the
>>>>>> biological and the chemical. The
>>>>>> semiotic is a certain level of
>>>>>> organization that the social has, but
>>>>>> there are other levels, just as
>>>>>> biology is a certain kind of chemical
>>>>>> organization which does not exclude
>>>>>> other, nonbiological ways organizing
>>>>>> chemicals, and chemistry is a kind of
>>>>>> physical organization which doesn't
>>>>>> exclude sub-chemical organizations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps we can think of the
>>>>>> relationship between culture and
>>>>>> society in the same way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>> Sangmyung University
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in
>>>>>> memoriam: A manual and a manifesto.
>>>>>> Outlines, Spring 2020
>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!XO9CPnmUmQMkJj_SSaQgq4XMiUp7VsdomA83SNtk6cPNI89H3qyLyug3u-Y0x-wcZGaqJw$
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!QwnjuGWv1M4ZX6kMNV7A1nO46fLjKXBSeMFcdiKYZQb3gv2FV78Tq_DhJK9vM5IH1niRwQ$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov:
>>>>>> /L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works/
>>>>>> /Volume One: Foundations of Pedology/"
>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!XO9CPnmUmQMkJj_SSaQgq4XMiUp7VsdomA83SNtk6cPNI89H3qyLyug3u-Y0x-wfrkYZrw$
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!QwnjuGWv1M4ZX6kMNV7A1nO46fLjKXBSeMFcdiKYZQb3gv2FV78Tq_DhJK9vM5JySLOtJA$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 8:28 AM David
>>>>>> H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. As an umbrella term for any
>>>>>> sociogenetic approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn’t that its current usage?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>> *On Behalf Of *Annalisa Aguilar
>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020
>>>>>> 3:31 PM
>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>>>>> Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re:
>>>>>> "sociocultural psychology" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Andy, and VO's,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What fascinates me is that the
>>>>>> word "sociocultural" has a lot of
>>>>>> different facets in terms of how
>>>>>> the word was used in different
>>>>>> contexts. It seems there are
>>>>>> three I've been able to pick out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. as a derisive term in early
>>>>>> Soviet history.
>>>>>> 2. as an empowering term from
>>>>>> Latin American voices.
>>>>>> 3. as a relaxed term of the
>>>>>> Marxist "brand" at the height
>>>>>> of the Cold War in the US.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure if I've done justice
>>>>>> in the manner that I've
>>>>>> represented that, but it is a
>>>>>> well-intended attempt. Are there
>>>>>> others?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I don't understand fully is
>>>>>> whether there must be ONE
>>>>>> explanation how the term came to
>>>>>> be, or ONE definition of what it
>>>>>> actually means. Can't it be
>>>>>> polysemantic? polycontextual?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is what's happening, then
>>>>>> it makes sense that there would
>>>>>> be an ongoing controversy about
>>>>>> which one is the right definition
>>>>>> or reason for not using it,
>>>>>> depending on the interlocutor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we are to talk about who used
>>>>>> the term first, and that's where
>>>>>> the value/authority holds, then
>>>>>> all that tells us is that for
>>>>>> those who value who used the term
>>>>>> first. that's where the authority
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we talk about the emotional
>>>>>> attachment of the word as it is
>>>>>> used in context and that's where
>>>>>> the value/authority holds, then
>>>>>> that tells us for those who value
>>>>>> the most personal attachment to
>>>>>> the word, that's where the
>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we talk about how the word was
>>>>>> used functionally, where the
>>>>>> value/authority holds in its
>>>>>> efficacy, then all that tells is
>>>>>> that for those who value whether
>>>>>> the word works or not, that's
>>>>>> where the authority is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure one can put any of
>>>>>> one these over the other two (or
>>>>>> if there are more than that, if
>>>>>> there are more). All we can say I
>>>>>> suppose is whether in a
>>>>>> particular context is the word
>>>>>> "sociocultural" appropriate or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do find that this debate has
>>>>>> begun to have its own life, this
>>>>>> debate over the use of a word.
>>>>>> I've begun doubt it will ever cease.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One day the discussion will be
>>>>>> how one used to debate about the
>>>>>> term, first everyone was this way
>>>>>> about the word, than they were
>>>>>> that way about the word, and many
>>>>>> large camps were formed in XXXX
>>>>>> year to say why the word should
>>>>>> not be used, but then X years
>>>>>> later other large camps formed to
>>>>>> say it is fine to use the word. I
>>>>>> suppose it will only be when the
>>>>>> debate ceases will it come to
>>>>>> pass that the debate will be
>>>>>> forgotten. But will that
>>>>>> cessation solidify the use or
>>>>>> non-use of the word?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand the reasons for
>>>>>> saying "cultural psychology." But
>>>>>> for those swimming in a culture
>>>>>> where behaviorism is considered
>>>>>> the soul of psychology, adding
>>>>>> "cultural" becomes a sad
>>>>>> necessity. Even then, that
>>>>>> necessity only depends upon how
>>>>>> one sees culture, as either as an
>>>>>> additive, an integral ingredient
>>>>>> of psychology, or its basis. I
>>>>>> believe I've read on the list
>>>>>> that one should be able to say
>>>>>> "psychology" and just *know* that
>>>>>> it includes culture. I don't
>>>>>> think we are there yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then that would be my argument to
>>>>>> use "sociocultural" to understand
>>>>>> it includes history. CHAT is sort
>>>>>> of a defensive term (well, it is
>>>>>> an acronym). But then... it
>>>>>> leaves out "social" and is that
>>>>>> OK? We certainly should not say
>>>>>> sociocultural historical activity
>>>>>> theory because that acronym is
>>>>>> very unfulfilling. What is nice
>>>>>> about CHAT though is that to chat
>>>>>> is an activity of speech, and
>>>>>> there is a implied meaning that
>>>>>> also pertains to Vygotskian
>>>>>> theories, and therefore meaningful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a sense, it's not the meaning
>>>>>> that we are arguing over, but how
>>>>>> the limitations of our particular
>>>>>> language fails to convey a
>>>>>> meaning with such precision that
>>>>>> it thereby to parses away any
>>>>>> other inappropriate meaning. I'm
>>>>>> just not sure that the project is
>>>>>> one that can be achieved
>>>>>> successfully, even if it succeeds
>>>>>> for an interim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the same time I can see why
>>>>>> story of the elephant and the
>>>>>> blind men also have a part to
>>>>>> play in our understandings and
>>>>>> assumptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2020 7:49 PM
>>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re:
>>>>>> "sociocultural psychology" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Annalisa, I have only been
>>>>>> talking and writing about
>>>>>> Vygotsky and co. since about 2000
>>>>>> and have been openly Marxist
>>>>>> since the 1960s (indeed, Vygotsky
>>>>>> is core to how I understand Marx)
>>>>>> and never had any reason not to
>>>>>> be. But it is true that when Mike
>>>>>> first went to Moscow, it was at
>>>>>> the height of the Cold War, and
>>>>>> when he and others first brought
>>>>>> Vygotsky's ideas to the USA,
>>>>>> there was a lot of resistance to
>>>>>> their Marxist content. I think
>>>>>> the naming issue only arose as
>>>>>> Vygotsky and the others began to
>>>>>> build a real following. The
>>>>>> issues with the choice of name
>>>>>> change over the years, as you
>>>>>> say. I prefer" CHAT," but
>>>>>> sometimes I use "Cultural
>>>>>> Psychology" and sometimes I use
>>>>>> "Activity Theory" depending on
>>>>>> the context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>> Hegel for Social Movements
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fbrill.com*2Fview*2Ftitle*2F54574__*3B!!Mih3wA!TlyHZFzEZ7SUE8GqN8__jv7a2SAk9Q_jiqAbrNCH5Bf1I-_gLIHGg1AbVtGJm26SqOHBwA*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C6f6f52b10ee64d7bfdbd08d7f9d8676f*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637252580239268522&sdata=s6REk*2BjVd*2Btd*2BH4FD*2FsS8hm1G6*2B*2FmMW*2FXfk4Vok6eNM*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Mih3wA!R9drsiySNEmllp604wKW_RghL8N-6pKyp0upwIQ08rRyyX4_xUCbMKYtkRxP4LhYAqXW_A$>
>>>>>> Home Page
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ethicalpolitics.org*2Fablunden*2Findex.htm__*3B!!Mih3wA!TlyHZFzEZ7SUE8GqN8__jv7a2SAk9Q_jiqAbrNCH5Bf1I-_gLIHGg1AbVtGJm26T9d8i0w*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C6f6f52b10ee64d7bfdbd08d7f9d8676f*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637252580239268522&sdata=VSo7NWNg3ZIpG7YMMUA6Ch*2BLEaFsqH*2FT1*2FuHN0t7Zlc*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Mih3wA!R9drsiySNEmllp604wKW_RghL8N-6pKyp0upwIQ08rRyyX4_xUCbMKYtkRxP4LiAFa1TEg$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/05/2020 4:18 am, Annalisa
>>>>>> Aguilar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy, et al,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I sort of came to this a
>>>>>> little late in the thread,
>>>>>> but I can offer that Vera
>>>>>> John-Steiner didn't mind
>>>>>> "sociocultural" to describe
>>>>>> Vygotskian theory, but as I
>>>>>> learn more about the word
>>>>>> (thank you Mike), I can see
>>>>>> how once a word is utilized
>>>>>> with intent of derision, it's
>>>>>> hard for the association to
>>>>>> be broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's that way with
>>>>>> words all the time coming and
>>>>>> going out of favor, or
>>>>>> meanings shifting, like the
>>>>>> game of telephone, but across
>>>>>> generations and cultures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Might I contribute to the
>>>>>> discussion by asking whether
>>>>>> the use of "sociocultural"
>>>>>> was also a means of making
>>>>>> the theories more available
>>>>>> in the West (at least in the
>>>>>> US). It seems there was
>>>>>> redscare (you are welcome
>>>>>> read the double entendre:
>>>>>> "red scare" or "reds care",
>>>>>> as you like) prevalent, and
>>>>>> wouldn't it be useful to
>>>>>> remove the Marxist "brand" to
>>>>>> access the actual theories on
>>>>>> child development? In other
>>>>>> words, to depoliticize the
>>>>>> science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had been a proponent of the
>>>>>> use of the word, but as time
>>>>>> passes, I can see its problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me, I had preferred the
>>>>>> word because historical was
>>>>>> always a given for me. In
>>>>>> concern of the here and now,
>>>>>> the real difficulty I had
>>>>>> thought was understanding the
>>>>>> social- how interactions
>>>>>> between the child and the
>>>>>> caretaker/teacher/knowledgeable
>>>>>> peer and the -cultural, how
>>>>>> the culture impacts thought,
>>>>>> those things are more of the
>>>>>> micro level, but also
>>>>>> sociocultural, how the two
>>>>>> also can interact and
>>>>>> influence one another and
>>>>>> that combined bears its own
>>>>>> signature on the mind and its
>>>>>> development. As far as
>>>>>> History (capital H) that is
>>>>>> sort of difficult to measure
>>>>>> when we are talking about
>>>>>> child development as there is
>>>>>> very little history that a
>>>>>> child has, unless we are
>>>>>> talking about genetics, I
>>>>>> suppose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now? I'm fairly agnostic
>>>>>> about the term. I respect and
>>>>>> am enriched by the discourse
>>>>>> in which we now we find
>>>>>> ourselves immersed about it
>>>>>> so thanks to all for this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14,
>>>>>> 2020 7:24 PM
>>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> "How does newness come into the world? How is
>> it born? Of what fusions, translations,
>> conjoinings is it made?" Salman Rushdie
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Cultural Praxis Website:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!XO9CPnmUmQMkJj_SSaQgq4XMiUp7VsdomA83SNtk6cPNI89H3qyLyug3u-Y0x-w9WJKciQ$
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!WkcWw-Z3AI5QbHQG3kQk977PWXXDiVwBdpwxA8ArenUhjysOeMjqpavdBME_3DBDTrLXgg$>
>> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!WkcWw-Z3AI5QbHQG3kQk977PWXXDiVwBdpwxA8ArenUhjysOeMjqpavdBME_3DBsgnimuA$>
>> Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu
>> <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>.
>> Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu
>> <http://lchcautobio.ucsd.edu>.
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200524/9fd5b143/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list