Paul,
I guess my take on double bind would be as follows,
1) As you rightly point out with the (girl?) you mentioned
there is this double bind in regards to everyday practice.
2) I would take her comment as also implying the tech activity
is also within this double bind in the sense it fails to
connect or meet the students (her) experiences.
My point, as in your mediation there, is that there may be a
possibility for a new type of activity - right. I don't think
it is so much moving from "everyday" to "tech" but that
something new needs to emerge so one can "do computers".
In one, "everyday" there really has not been experience with
the various tools of technology, yet from your descriptions it
seems the tech activity also fails here, right - or you would
not be there. So, if one is going to move from "not really
doing computers" to "doing them" something has to change -
something different that the other two. This would be my
reading of Huck, but maybe I'm missing something.
How do we get something new seems to be the question. In your
example, at least my take, would be that if someone is going to
"do computers" one has to take a third route because both AS's
will not resolve the issue.
The "girl" of course can not do this by herself which is why I
assume your there.
Nate
4/29/01 10:03:50 AM, "Paul H.Dillon" <illonph@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>Nate,
>
>Aren't there several possibilities?
>
>Wouldn't historically new have to be relevant to a given
>collectivity/subject?. Even an activity which is absolutely
new from the
>universal perspective begins with a particular group. Often
the initial
>experiences provide lessons/understandings that are reflected
back into the
>activity changing the process of its occurrence for other
groups (subjects).
>
>I can think of at least two possibilities:
>
>1. The emergence sui generis of an activity within a group,
sort of an
>internally unfolding history; independent development.
>
>2. Transfer of the activity from an external subject who
already
>possesses the practice.
>
>I think that we normally confront situations of the latter
kind which is not
>to say that each collectivity/subject doesn't have to
effectively recreate
>the experience as a sui generis emergence for it to take root.
>
>
>This brings us to the issue concerning the degree to which the
emergence of
>an activity that transforms/destroys the group in which it it
takes root and
>I think the transition from Learning 2 to Learning 3 in
Bateson generally
>implied some kind of ego death where the ego was related to
identities
>established in relation to the Learning 2 patterns in or for
which the
>double-binds arose..
>
>
>Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Nate Schmolze <vygotsky@home.com>
>To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 6:16 AM
>Subject: Re: relevance to LBE
>
>
>>
>> How is it "historically new"? It would seem a crieria for YE
>> would not just be "new" for the subject but genuinely
>> "historically new" activities.
>>
>> If for example, those involved created a "new" type of an
>> activity to deal with those double binds that would appear
to
>> meet the criteria, but am unclear how something just
personally
>> new would qualify.
>>
>> Nate
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 4/28/01 1:15:59 PM, "Paul H.Dillon" <illonph@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Diane,
>> >
>> >My message concerning my experiences with the small project
up
>> here
>> >certainly did redirect the discussion onto the specific
>> situation of the
>> >ZPD. Why people don't take the question of contradictions
>> that I presented
>> >in that example into the LBE direction is something I have
no
>> control over.
>> >I think it is very relevant here and in particular since YE
>> wrote in Ch. 3:
>> >
>> >"A provisional reformulation of the zone of proximal
>> development is now
>> >possible: It is the distance between the everyday actions
of
>> the individuals
>> >and the historically new form of the societal activity that
>> can be
>> >collectively generated as a solution to the double bind
>> potentially embedded
>> >in everyday actions." (174)
>> >
>> >What I was pointing to in that example had to do precisely
>> with how that
>> >double-bind first comes to be an issue for those kids (and
>> thereby a
>> >potential contradiction for generating transformation)
since
>> their everyday
>> >actions don't include participation in the "new form of the
>> societal
>> >activity". As the girl told me, "I don't have nothin' to
do
>> with computer
>> >stuff." And there is an additional Catch-22 (if not
exactly a
>> double bind)
>> >insofar as participation in the new form of societal
activity
>> presupposes a
>> >certain skills.
>> >
>> >I can't help it if people want to continue to look at the
hole
>> and not the
>> >donut.
>> >
>> >Paul H. Dillon
>> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:09 PDT