*cues music*
baaah-da-da-da daaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! boom-shakka-lakka-lakka
*applause sign lights up*
Oh boy. This sounds fantastic bill. I'm IN! I can put this on my resume!
"Performer in the Activity Theory Show Fall 2002" - I know you call it a
stew, a Stew,
but Show is funnier isn't it? And it IS a show, appealing to many of the
egos, certainly mine, I'm sure.
Wonderful. How about a Stew and Show, a "rrrilly big Shew..."
diane
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>Ok, well... things are getting pretty dullsville around here, and while i
>know folks are probably working hard toward an aera deadline (I should be
>too, but too much focussing makes me allergic), there is something
>creative
>and distractive i have in mind, with respect to Lois' latest posting.
>
>It's a game I've just adapted from an online art activity i've been
>observing.
>
>The game is called "Activity Theory Stew" or "Do many cooks roil the
>soup?"
>
>I'll need four (4) intrepid volunteers for this game, which goes in
>rounds.
>The game will start in August, when we are ready, and when aera proposals
>are
>submitted. Volunteers will apply to me directly -- and specify your
>orientation: A) Activity (with a capital A); B) mediated action in
>context;
>C) Culture is central; D) power, gender, and difference; E) forms of
>participation. (Or you may want to substitute one of your own categories
>for
>any one of the above) Don't worry that there might be overlaps -- this
>is a
>only a game. If there are not enough volunteers, we won't play. All 5
>players post in each of 5 rounds to xmca. Any xmca'er (player or
>non-player)
>who criticizes a contribution will be expected to write a substitution
>for
>the criticized element under the threat of due and duly backstage
>harassment
>by "yours truly" -- the idea being that this is a creative game, and if
>you
>are not playing, please respect those that are.
>
>1) So here is how it works. In the first round, each player puts
>together a
>text "scenario" according to their orientation. It can be simply a
>story, a
>microgenesis, a scene, a setting, a description of a
>system/community/figured
>world, whatever, with some combination of observation and theory -- but
>balance between the two is NOT required. Fiction is fine. Postings are
>limited to a maximum of 800 words, with a minimum of 100 words.
>
>2) Second round. "A" extends the "B" posting, adding 100 to 800 words
>according to A's prefered orientation. "B" responds to "C", "C" responds
>to
>"D", "D" responds to "E", and "E" responds to "A", each according to
>their
>own orientation. You see, we will be brewing 5 stews, 5 jointly cooked
>stews. Postings must quote the prior work to guarantee artistic and
>semiotic
>flow.
>
>3-5) rounds three to five, we repeat the process. Again A responds to
>B's
>latest posting, B responds to C's latest posting, etc. It might be
>argued
>that A will always end up responding to B, B to C, and so on, and this
>sequence will never really mix things up. Tough. It's my rules, and if
>you
>want to play you have to stick to them. Besides, this is simplest to
>make
>happen. And I think things could get plenty mixed up as it is.
>
>At the end of play we will have 5 jointly constructed multiperspective
>postings. No one wins, no one loses. What's the point? Having some
>creative fun with theory, playing a new game with new rules, seeing what
>happens when mulitiple perspectives are put into synthesis. Xmca'ers
>will
>see the development happening right before their eyes. The possibilities
>just make me tremble with excitement! It's not clear how this will work
>out,
>it is kind of a ensemble of collective thought experiments.
>
>Anyway, if you are interested, drop me a line. Don't forget to mention
>your
>orientation -- but like any good game you can role play one that is not
>your
>favorite, if you wish to break out of that boundary. Once you have
>chosen an
>orientation, however, please try to stick to it. If there are more
>players
>than roles I'll figure out some way to decide who is in, but we won't
>vote on
>it.
>
>Cheers,
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday 23 July 2002 07:22 pm, LHolzdan@aol.com wrote:
>> I like the topic Mike put forth for an SRCD symposium very much.
>>
>> An excerpt:
>> One major fraction line has been formulated as a difference between
>those
>> who focus on "mediated action in context" versus those who focus on
>> "activity" as a basic unit of analysis. Another common fraction line is
>> between those who emphasize mediational tools and those who focus on
>forms
>> of participation. Yet another set of issues centers on questions of the
>> ability of one or another such position to deal with issues of power,
>> gender, and difference more generally.
>> Finally, the different perspective often appear to differ with respect
>to
>> the extent to which the concepts of development and culture are, or are
>> not, central to their concerns.
>>
>> Certainly those tensions were there at ISCRAT. Although my work leans
>to
>> the "activity" and "forms of participation" side, I think my colleagues
>and
>> I work to create programs from the perspective of a unity, rather than
>an
>> opposition, of the sides each "fraction" takes. In addition to
>presenting
>> some of this at ISCRAT, I (happily) attended a few sessions that I took
>as
>> trying to do the same. Some of you might be familiar with the term Fred
>> Newman and I coined (originally in 1979 but more widely known from our
>1993
>> book Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary Scientist) -- "tool-and-result" by
>which
>> we mean to distinguish a) tools in which the process of creating them
>> simultaneously creates their "result" from b) instrumental tools (tool
>for
>> result, already made tools). We mean to highlight that human beings are
>> not only tool users but tool makers. Our inspiration was originally
>> Vygotsky's statement about his search for method being simultaneously
>the
>> tool and the result of study, and we took this to indicate that he was
>> formulating a tool-and-result methodology. Anyway, if we accept that
>> people are capable of, and sometimes participate in, tool-and-result
>> activity, then culture is a unity, i.e., mediational
>tool-and-developmental
>> result.
>> Unfortunately, I was off at a conference and couldn't suggest this for
>the
>> SRCD symposium but perhaps Mike or someone else has ideas for another
>> future venue.
>>
>> A question: In my ongoing work in outside-of-school youth development
>> projects, I and the people who run them are situating them within the
>> discourse of "supplemental education." The term was coined by Edmund
>> Gordon in the 90s to refer to outside-of-school activities that
>> white/middle class kids take part in to a far greater degree than
>> black/latino/poor kids do (museum trips, drama, art, dancing lessons,
>> conversations about politics, world events, etc.). Gordon and other
>> educators believe supplemental education experiences help to explain the
>> school achievement gap between these groups. They are pushing for
>social
>> policy dialogue on this topic as a means to support, as well as (on
>> Gordon's part) bringing the message to parents. Are others familiar
>with
>> this term and do you find it useful?
>>
>> Thanks for any comments,
>> Lois
>>
>> Lois Holzman
>> Director
>> East Side Institute for Short Term Psychotherapy
>> 500 Greenwich Street
>> New York NY 10013
>> 212-941-8844
>> www.eastsideinstitute.org
>
>--
>(:^{>
>
>
>
'Lord Ronald said nothing; he flung himself from the room, flung himself
upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions.'
Stephen Leacock,
"Gertrude the Governess, or Simple Seventeen."
***************************************************************************************************
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
vancouver, bc
mailing address: 46 broadview avenue, pointe claire, qc, H9R 3Z2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 01:00:11 PDT