RE: Multidisciplinary perspectives

From: Eugene Matusov (ematusov@udel.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 30 2003 - 10:45:23 PST


Thanks A LOT, Victor!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your brief historico-genealogical remark
helps me situate Pierce and his writing.

 

I feel so privileged being taught by you, Andy, and Luiz about Pierce.

 

Thanks a lot,

 

Eugene

 

  _____

From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 8:19 AM
To: ematusov@UDel.Edu; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Multidisciplinary perspectives

 

 I did not find these themes of social consequences as the definer of
meaning and intention, evident both in Hegel and Mead (and Wittgenstein) in
Piece. My interpretation of Piece is that meaning and intention is fully
defined by and preexists in the “producer”. Did I miss something?

 

Not at all. Pragmatism is essentially an American version of English
empiricism and Continental positivism. All three philosophic movements are
based on the assumption that observed qualities, quantities, and measures
are, metaphysically speaking, Real things. While meaning is regarded as
implicit in the observed world, Beliefs, Desires, and Intentions (the BDI
of positivist social psychology - e.g. H. economicus of classical Political
Economics) are attributed to inherited organism, to a-priori needs, or to
"free choice," or to a combination of these.

 

Pierce is interesting because his interest in language somewhat compromised
the rigorousness of his empiricism. Your quote;

 

“You can write down the word “star”; but that does not make you the creator
of the word, nor if you erase it have you destroyed the word. The word lives
in the minds of those who use it.

 

Shows some degree of understanding of the essentially conventional nature of
language. It appears to me that Pierce's ambiguity concerning the origin of
meaning may well have served as part of the inspiration for the "social
pragmatism" of Dewey and Mead.

 

Regards,

Victor

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Eugene Matusov <mailto:ematusov@udel.edu>

To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 10:32 PM

Subject: RE: Multidisciplinary perspectives

 

Dear Victor–

 

Thanks for elaboration on the symbolism of the British flag! Thanks to you,
Victor, the British flag became a symbol for me :-).

 

As to “It seems to me that the key of Mead's definition of the symbol, “a
significant symbol is a stimulus which calls on its producer the response
intended on the part of the receiver.” is not the term, "stimulus," but
rather the following phrase, "which calls on its producer the response
intended on the part of the receiver.” The stimulus which is produced with
specified intention and is generated to produce an expected (by the
producer) response from the reciever is a conscious and interested act. The
definition is phrased somewhat differently than the richer and more detailed
considerations of symbols and meaning of Hegel and Marx, but its general
message is similar to theirs.”

 

I find an interesting point from Hegel that we learn about goals of our
actions through consequences of the actions (and their interpretations).
Also, Mead insisted that meaning of our actions emerges from reactions of
others. I did not find these themes of social consequences as the definer of
meaning and intention, evident both in Hegel and Mead (and Wittgenstein) in
Piece. My interpretation of Piece is that meaning and intention is fully
defined by and preexists in the “producer”. Did I miss something?

 

Eugene

 

 

  _____

From: victor [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 4:17 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Multidisciplinary perspectives

 

The British flag is I believe a layer cake of flags: the big perpendicular
red cross (bordered with white) in the middle is St. George's cross, the
Heraldic symbol of the Mediaeval Patron Saint of Great Britain; the white
diagonal cross on a blue field is St. Andrew's cross, symbol of the
Mediaeval Patron Saint of Scotland; The red diagonal cross (superimposed on
the white diagonal cross) is St. Patrick's cross, symbol of the Mediaeval
Patron Saint of Ireland. Interestingly, the Red Dragon of Wales is not
represented on the British Flag.

 

   It seems to me that the key of Mead's definition of the symbol, “a
significant symbol is a stimulus which calls on its producer the response
intended on the part of the receiver.” is not the term, "stimulus," but
rather the following phrase, "which calls on its producer the response
intended on the part of the receiver.” The stimulus which is produced with
specified intention and is generated to produce an expected (by the
producer) response from the reciever is a conscious and interested act. The
definition is phrased somewhat differently than the richer and more detailed
considerations of symbols and meaning of Hegel and Marx, but its general
message is similar to theirs.

Victor

----- Original Message -----

From: Eugene Matusov <mailto:ematusov@udel.edu>

To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 2:00 AM

Subject: RE: Multidisciplinary perspectives

 

Thanks a lot Luiz for the elaboration!

 

You wrote that according to Mead, “a significant symbol is a stimulus which
calls on its producer the response intended on the part of the receiver.”
Coming from Hegelian and Marxist perspective, it is difficult for me to
think of symbol as a stimulus. I can’t understand it. Any behavior has some
kind of influence on organism producing it, right? How is it different from
“a significant symbol”? What this stimulus mediate? Russian philosopher
Losev wrote an interesting book about symbols and signs arguing that symbol
is a kind of signs in which there is a certain, not arbitrary, relation
between the signifier and signified (e.g., American flag is a symbol while
British may be not unless it has symbolism that I do not know). Did Mead
have in mind such symbol?

 

Please help,

 

Eugene

 

  _____

From: Luiz Carlos Baptista [mailto:lucabaptista@sapo.pt]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:28 AM
To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
Subject: Re: Multidisciplinary perspectives

 

Hi Eugene,

 

The emphasis on "symbolic" comes from George Herbert Mead's concept of
"significant symbol" (in "Mind, Self, and Society"): a significant symbol is
a stimulus which calls on its producer the response intended on the part of
the receiver. Language is the paramount example. For instance, when I say
something to someone else I also hear what I say and - even more important -
understand it. And the same goes for my addressee. According to Mead, this
commonality of reactions ("taking the role of the other", so to speak) is
the basis of the shared character of meaning, an emergent property of
interaction. It's from here that Blumer goes to coin the phrase "Symbolic
Interactionism".

 

So far so good. But the Symbolic Interactionist tradition indeed has a
problem in dealing with structural-historical constraints. To this, the
interactionist may reply that he recognizes the existence of structures, but
these do not make sense unless viewed as emergent properties of interaction.
Anyway, the "obdurate" character of socio-historical structures seems to be
missing in much of the interactionist studies, and it is the main source of
conflict between this sociological tradition and the
"structural-functionalist" (e.g. Parsons, Merton, etc.).

 

If you're really into it, there is a very nice article by the sociologist
Gary Alan Fine in which he discusses these two approaches. It's here:

 

http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~konopas/liter/Fine_On%20the%20Macrofoundations%20of%
20Microsociology.htm

 

Rgrds,

 

Luiz Carlos Baptista
 <mailto:lucabaptista@sapo.pt> lucabaptista@sapo.pt
 <mailto:lucabaptista@hotmail.com> lucabaptista@hotmail.com

----- Original Message -----

From: Eugene Matusov <mailto:ematusov@udel.edu>

To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

Sent: quarta-feira, 12 de Novembro de 2003 23:44

Subject: RE: Multidisciplinary perspectives

 

Dear Luiz–

 

Thanks a lot for the reference and the concise definition. These three
principles sound very similar to what I’ve learned about a dynamic system
approach and Gibson’s ecological approach. I guess all of these approaches
are family of interactionism. What is about the emphasis on “symbolic”?

 

So far, I can say that a sociocultural approach includes the three
principles but involve much more than socially dynamic and interactive
aspects of meaning making. There are historical aspects and structural
aspects that seem to be out of interest scope of the symbolic interactionist
principles described by Luiz. For example, Jim Wertsch’s (and mine) favorite
example with the QWERTY American keyboard of how history can help us
understand meaning of events seems out of the scope of the symbolic
interactionism. Similarly structural inequalities evident in school
achievements would be difficult to approach by the symbolic interactionism,
I think.

 

I teach a course on cultural diversity for preservice teachers. The class
has a practicum component associated with afterschool program in Latin
American Community Center. Recently I came to a conclusion that ideally I
need to be teaching another multicultural course in the sequence with this
one. In my current course my students are focused on relational and dynamic
aspects of issues of multiculturalism emerging from their work with Latino
children at LACC. I’d like to teach them a “big picture” focusing on
historical and structural issues. Of course, in my current class we touch
upon the “big picture” but only touch upon… I think my students need more… I
think that my first course is within realms of symbolic interactionism while
the imagined second course would not.

 

What do you think?

 

Eugene

 

  _____

From: Luiz Carlos Baptista [mailto:lucabaptista@sapo.pt]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 10:26 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Multidisciplinary perspectives

 

Hi Eugene,

 

In his book "Symbolic Interactionism", Herbert Blumer gives this concise
definition of the interactionist perspective:

 

Symbolic interactionism rests in the last analysis on three simple premises.
The first premise is that human beings act toward things on the basis of the
meanings that the things have for them. Such things include everything that
the human being may note in his world – physical objects, such as trees or
chairs; other human beings, such as a mother or a store clerk; categories of
human beings, such as friends or enemies; institutions, as a school or a
government; guiding ideals, such as individual independence or honesty;
activities of others, such as their commands or requests; and such
situations as an individual encounters in his daily life. The second premise
is that the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the
social interaction that one has with one’s fellows. The third premise is
that these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative
process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters.

 

Maybe this passage could provide the elements for a comparison between "S.
I." and "sociocultural approaches".

 

Rgrds,

 

Luiz Carlos Baptista
 <mailto:lucabaptista@sapo.pt> lucabaptista@sapo.pt
 <mailto:lucabaptista@hotmail.com> lucabaptista@hotmail.com

----- Original Message -----

From: Eugene Matusov <mailto:ematusov@udel.edu>

To: 'Jayson <mailto:cb450k@juno.com> Seaman'

Cc: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

Sent: terça-feira, 11 de Novembro de 2003 5:24

Subject: RE: Multidisciplinary perspectives

 

Dear Jayson–

 

I’m not very familiar with symbolic interactionism (but I’d like to know
more about it), however, I try to study sociocultural approaches for some
time. Why don’t we combine our knowledge and interests?! Why don’t you
describe symbolic interactionism and I’ll try to compare it with
sociocultural approaches (hopefully other xmca-ers can help us as well)? If
you agree to do that, please focus on what attracts your attention in
symbolic interactionism and try to use examples to your descriptions.

 

What do you think?

 

Eugene

 

  _____

From: Jayson Seaman [mailto:cb450k@juno.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 8:24 PM
To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
Cc: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Multidisciplinary perspectives

 

Eugene and all:

I am somewhat new to this list and to the sociocultural approach in general,
and I especially appreciate your comment Eugene about the need for
multidisciplinary perspectives. It provides an entre into a question I have
been pondering for a little while now. I am approaching my dissertation
proposal in the upcoming months and will be studying the development of
individual and group learning in an outdoor, adventure context--specifically
how "adventure" is constructed in small group activity. The field of outdoor
adventure education has yet to engage with the sociocultural approach and I
am eager to sink my teeth further into the connection, since the fit is
quite appropriate, I feel. The field still has something of a "black box"
phenomenon going on.

 

My question for the list is along these multidisciplinary lines--I have been
reading studies and theories in a symbolic interactionist tradition, and it
strikes me that the sociocultural approach and symbolic interaction are
somewhat complementary. I can notice some similarities and differences, but
overall I am drawn to both (my aim in my work is to understand what it means
to "experientially educate", so I don't pledge allegiance to one particular
discipline). Symbolic Interactionism does not seem to give as much credence
to object history, for example (although it does come up), but it does
provide a way to examine the group construction of meaning in a given
context, specifically how one thing leads to the next--made even more potent
by including object histories and distal influences. One obvious overlap is
the frequent reference made to John Dewey.

 

Here is the question--can anyone point me in the direction of a
straightforward treatment of the similarities or differences between the
sociocultural approach (admittedly a broad stroke) and symbolic
interactionism? Or, any other works that draw on both? I have yet to come
across any studies where people reference scholars from both traditions.
Perhaps there's a "good reason" people don't draw from each tradition...? I
don't want to run headlong into a dilemma that others have encountered
previously.

 

Any thoughts or past explorations in this area are greatly appreciated. I
apologize if I am overlooking obvious references. If you are interested, I
can reciprocate by passing along specific references that illustrate
similarities, at least in my thinking.

 

With regards,

Jayson Seaman

Ph.D. Student
University of New Hampshire

 

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 19:36:32 -0500 "Eugene Matusov" <
<mailto:ematusov@udel.edu> ematusov@udel.edu> writes:

Dear Andy and everybody–

 

I think our sociocultural (or whatever it can be called) approach forces us
to be "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none". It represents a difficult dilemma
for us: how to be multidisciplinary but avoid being shallow and arrogant. I
think the solution of this dilemma is in our collective efforts rather than
in individual achievements. That is why I so value the diverse xmca
community because we can help each other avoid shallow judgments without
losing broad multidisciplinary perspective required by our approach. By the
way, because of this (and other) features, our approach is on odds with
mainstream institutional demands judging quality of our work based on
individualistic authorship…. I feel that behind authorship of articles that
I contribute is a broad academic community (or even communities).

 

Eugene

PS I noticed that when people reply to my messages they reply to me
personally and not to XCMA. I do not know why it is but suspect some faulty
configuration of my email program (I use Outlook 2003). If anybody knows how
I can change it and fix the problem, please, let me know. Meanwhile, please
make sure that you reply to all xmca and not just me (unless you want to).
Thanks and sorry!

 

  _____

From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:54 PM
To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
Subject: RE: Formal thinking or alienated thinking

 

Indeed, I am sure I would. As you may have gathered from the posts I sent at
the beginning of this strange surge in activity on my part, my interest is
CHAT/psychology supports my primary aim in elucidating the study of "ethical
politics", that is to say in trying to find an approach to the "big
problems" of the world which is translatable into person-to-person
collaborative activity. As a result, I am a bit of a
"jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" and have to put up with very imperfect
knowledge of the many branches of enquiry I find myself involved in!

Andy
At 05:41 PM 9/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:

Andy, you may be interested reading Davydovs work, for example:

Davydov, V. V. (1998). What is formal learning activity? Journal of Russian
& East European Psychology, 36(4), 37-47.

 

I think you will enjoy his writing because I sense some similarities between
him and you.

 

Eugene

 

  _____

From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:16 PM
To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
Subject: RE: Formal thinking or alienated thinking

 

I know the name of course. He is one of the famous names of CHAT. I think we
may have a short piece by him on the MIA. But I don't know his work,
Andy
At 01:20 PM 9/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:

Thanks, Andy. You wrote, there has to be a separation between theoretical
thinking and practical thinking before you can have formal thinking. Sounds
like Vasilii V. Davydov are you familiar with his work?

 

Eugene

 

  _____

From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 7:01 AM
To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
Subject: Re: Formal thinking or alienated thinking

 

At 10:41 PM 8/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:

Thanks a lot, Andy, for such deep and detailed reply. Your political example
and analysis made me think that formal thinking is based on oppression,
alienation, manipulation, and privilege in other words on certain social
relations.

Well I think that it wouldn't be far wrong to say that formal thinking
arises on the same basis as mathematics, so I would be cautious. Perhaps I
overstated my case again. I mean, there has to be a separation between
theoretical thinking and practical thinking before you can have formal
thinking.
-------------

On the other hand, it may be that people do not think formally in the exact
sense of this term at all but rather they think in some other alienated ways
that are much broader and richer than "formal thinking" and "formal logic"
described by philosophers and mathematicians. Jim Gee in his 1996 book on
literacy describes ideological colonization (probably Marx did it before
him) when one class uncritically uses ideology of another class.

I think this is another issue altogether. The ruling ideas of any society
are going to be the ideas of the ruling class since thinking appropriates
the form of life of that society.
--------------

I wonder if focus on alienated thinking is better than on formal thinking to
capture the phenomenon of alienated life, so nicely described by Andy, Every
question is detached from the form of life in which it arises and treated
abstractly. People's knowledge is not a knowledge from their own life, with
consequences from their own actions, but a stream of arbitrarily assembled
news-bytes and images, fabricated in studios. The formal thinking with all
its syllogisms and rigid rules seems to be rarely a part of everyday
thinking of people even in Western societies. I doubt you can convince
people in Western societies using formal logic very often& On the other
hand, as Mike's and Sylvia Scribner's and Luria's research shows Western
people are very familiar with the formal logic and strongly believe that it
is the Logic&.

Well, I think alienated thinking and formal thinking are two different but
inter-related things, both of them with an element of rationality precisely
because they reflect certain objectively true relations in society.

Any person who is capable of mentally separating the attributes of an object
from the object itself is capable of formal thinking. Anyone who loses sight
of the object through seeing only its attributes is trapped in formal
thinking.

Andy

 

What do you think?

 

Eugene

  _____

From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 1:32 AM
To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
Subject: RE: timescale question

 

Andy wrote, A whole politics of "getting the numbers" then flows from this
which is not only based on a conception of human society as little coloured
dots in a Venn Diagram, but actually creates such a type of society. In
other words, we live in a society which is actually structured as a formal
logical conception.

Eugene wrote: I wonder what you mean by creates such a type of society.Do
you mean that through the election practice people start thinking formally?
Do you mean that this practice makes people believe that they think formally
while actually they do not (i.e., creates a certain false ideology)? Or do
you mean that this practice makes people prioritize formal logic as the
logic? I agree with you that something related to formal logic "hooks on"
the existing practice of the Western election process guided by the formal
logic (as if the formal logic is correct). The question for me is what
exactly is this "something"?

Very broadly, ways of thinking and ways of living mutually create and
sustain one another, don't they. Of course, in this relation, living and
acting has a position of primacy over thinking, captured in aphorisms such
as "One must eat before one can paint" or "One must have something to talk
about before one can talk". But the relation is two-way noetheless.

It is of course not just parliamentary democracy which creates and sustains
a culture of formal thinking, it is also the ubiquitous practice of
exchanging products of labour under contract rather than actually
cooperating with other people. Commercial TV has a lot to answer for as
well.

Specifically, what I am saying about the practice of voting for governments
in large geographical electorates would be like this. (i) The job or career
of deciding how we should live we give to an institution remote from our own
lives, so we externalise our selves and put our ethical powers into an alien
body which then rules us; (ii) because our vote is just one vote among
100,000 votes of other people with whom we have no relation at all, we are
aware that the will created in the form of a powerful state is not our will,
but that of an external, alien force (why bother to vote?); (iii) thus when
pondering on the meaning of our lives and how we should live we have already
externalised out selves from ourselves. This is the first pre-requisite for
formal thinking, external relation-to-self. Then, a public political life is
conducted on our behalf in which any question can be carried if 50.1% of the
population can be persuaded to vote "Yes" (although plebiscite is not the
normal way of deciding, the system approximates to plebiscite); this means
that a political actor has to redefine a question so as to assemble the
50.1% under "yes" and people are reduced to carriers of external
characteristics of being for or against on the various isolated aspects of
the issue. This produces what people call "politicians with no vision" and
"thinking which only goes as far as the next election". It is the difference
between the General and the Universal. For example, when there was a
plebiscite in Australia over getting rid of the monarchy and having a
republic, the question was so posed that when you added the number of
monarchists to those who wanted a popularly elected head of state, they
outnumbered those who were willing to accept as a second-best a head of
state nominated by parliament (note the fact that people wanted an
Individual directly responsible to the people, not a creature of the
politicians). The two diametrically opposite camps both voted "no" and we
are stuck with a monarchy, which had the support of only a small minority.
Thus politicians treat people not as citizens and actors within a community,
but as carriers of "opinions" or "attributes". They address themselves not
to citizens but to opinions.
TV and other forms of mass media funded by advertising are not only one-way
forms of communication, but are also designed to address the 50.1% or to
target "audiences". Thus again people are atomised and reduced to passive
receivers possessed of preferences and opinions, not as human beings. Every
question is detached from the form of life in which it arises and treated
abstractly. People's knowledge is not a knowledge from their own life, with
consequences from their own actions, but a stream of arbitrarily assembled
news-bytes and images, fabricated in studios.

These institutions which promote and sustain formal thinking are not 100% of
human life in modernity; real life is complex and multifaceted, and people
think mostly formally, but not entirely and not uniformly. But capitalist
democracy and formal thinking mutually reinforce and sustain one another.

Andy

 

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:12 PST