After sending that email I went and visited the web site of my former job
(I retired in 2002), and I found that the word "collaboration" has reverted
to the meaning I fought like hell to quash - "creating the maximum possible
distance between people and then creating a thin channel of electronic
communication for them to overcome." Hegel said something about the
comparative power of the individual against the Zeitgeist. :( So yes, 7
years is obviously too short a time.
Andy
At 10:07 PM 18/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Only 7 years? Wow!
>
>You probably know that there are websites that feature architectural
>designs for the learning spaces of the future ... though I imagine they
>have trouble keeping up with changing technology --- but at least they are
>thinking about it!
>
>I wonder how students would describe their ideal environment for
>supporting learning?
>
>Or is it just the world we live in?
>
>JAY.
>
>At 09:53 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:
>>I love your "concrete" example, Jay.
>>I got involved in xmca c. 1995 when I took on the job of looking after
>>teaching spaces at the University of Melbourne. Talking to teaching staff
>>I became aware that the buildings and rooms themselves, equipment and the
>>whole organisation and conception of teaching infrastructure was stuck in
>>the 1960s, the last time the relevant architects and administrators had
>>had anything to do with a lecture theatre. A 7-year project of changing
>>consciousness, policy documents, financial arrangements and
>>organisational structures at *every* level then followed, with me pushing
>>from underneath the whole time. That experience has always formed for me
>>the paradigmatic example of the mediation of learning and communication
>>by material artefacts. ... and that didn't even get to content, course
>>design and teaching practice.
>>Andy
>>At 08:13 PM 17/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>>I am a bit busy right now, but it would be interesting to consider a
>>>specific example.
>>>
>>>One thing I had in mind was, for example, the difficulty and long
>>>timescale involved in changing teaching practices in classrooms. A
>>>teacher might have discussion with students mediated not just by words,
>>>but also by items in a textbook (diagrams, photos, written questions,
>>>tables of information, etc.) . The forms that the discussion takes, and
>>>the existence of textbooks (as a genre and as material objects) depends
>>>on community norms, divisions of labor, etc. Think what it takes to get
>>>major changes in textbooks throughout a school district, state, or
>>>country. Think what it would take to change the genre of the textbook to
>>>say something dialogic (ala Plato or Galileo) rather than monlogical,
>>>both in terms of the attitudes and thinking of large numbers of people,
>>>and in terms of the writing, production, and distribution of the new
>>>kinds of books. Think about the form of the infamous
>>>Question-Answer-Evaluation speech genre in classrooms (IRE or IRF,
>>>famously analyzed for pro's as well as con's by Gordon), how its
>>>perpetuation is grounded in the experience in school of whole
>>>generations, and in what is taught in teacher education institutions
>>>(along with standard formats of lesson plans, etc.). Think how these
>>>practices depend even on the micro-architecture of classrooms (teacher
>>>in front, rows of desks) and what it would take materially, as well as
>>>in design norms, to change it. (Yes, I know there are other patterns,
>>>but none are yet a dominant norm, I think).
>>>
>>>So the "weight" at the bottom of the triangle gets translated into a lot
>>>of very concrete mediators (books of specific genres, utterances and
>>>exchanges in specific speech genres, arrangements of furniture, written
>>>lesson plans, etc.) that not only mediate between teacher and student,
>>>but also in a different sense mediate between the macrosocial and the
>>>microsocial, between the collective institutions (in the technical
>>>sociological sense) at the bottom of the big triangle, and the
>>>interpersonal joint activity actions at the top.
>>>
>>>In many ways what I am trying to describe is a Latourian elaboration on
>>>the multiscale social dynamics that the triangles represent.
>>>
>>>JAY.
>>>
>>>
>>>At 10:38 PM 10/16/2007, you wrote:
>>>>I think that idea is really worth thingking about, Jay. Can you give us a
>>>>concrete expample
>>>>to think with? The general idea is appealing.
>>>>mike
>>>>
>>>>On 10/16/07, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > An interesting point, certainly, that we _do_ reify these things, in
>>>> > many ways, and it is through those reifications, and not as
>>>> > abstractions, that rules, norms, divisions of labor, etc. have their
>>>> > material mediations for us.
>>>> >
>>>> > We write down laws, we mouth aphorisms, we have indeed got road
>>>> > signs, and markers of class divisions and gender divisions, and media
>>>> > advertising and photos to show which toys go with boys and which with
>>>> > girls, etc. etc.
>>>> >
>>>> > How then do these mediations differ from those at the top center of
>>>> > the triangle? all mediations are surely both material and semiotic,
>>>> > but those that run vertically are frequently repeated, they become
>>>> > typical of communities, and not just ad hoc improvisations of a
>>>> > moment. As such, their dynamics, the timescales on which they change
>>>> > (and don't change), are quite different. In Latour's terms, their
>>>> > networks are "longer", or materially speaking, there is a lot more
>>>> > "mass" at stake, more people, more tool-making engines, more fat and
>>>> > thin wallets, more prisons and uniforms and weapons. More badges of
>>>> > rank, more paper flowing through chains of command, more social
>>>> > geography of big and small houses built near and far to one another,
>>>> > with more or less garbage in their streets.
>>>> >
>>>> > Those social realities down at the bottom represent a lot more "weight".
>>>> >
>>>> > What do you think?
>>>> >
>>>> > JAY.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > At 08:13 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
>>>> > >At 07:05 PM 14/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>>>> > >>I agree with Mike that mediation, in some sense(s), occurs not just
>>>> > >>through tools, but also via more community level "culture". The
>>>> > >>problem, I think, is to not simply reify abstractions like rules,
>>>> > >>norms, division of labor, etc.,
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >... or on the other hand, to see how rules, norms, division of
>>>> > >labor, etc., *are* reified (or objectified), and why people act in
>>>> > >line with them as if they were written down like road signs?
>>>> > >
>>>> > >Andy
>>>> > >
>>>> > >>but, again as Mike recommends, to see how they play out in concrete
>>>> > >>cases. From such cases we can try to build a repertoire of
>>>> > >>different ways in which these community-level mediations occur.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>In the genre/SFL/register approach that Gordon recommends, and that
>>>> > >>Ruqaiya Hasan also commented on, one way to see such mediations is
>>>> > >>through the ways in which different "social voices" (ala Bakhtin)
>>>> > >>or textual genres, which have their manifestations in talk and
>>>> > >>texts at the apex of the top triangle, themselves translate
>>>> > >>divisions of labor and opinion, or social norms, in the community
>>>> > >>(or communities) into concrete practices ... such as in Bakhtin's
>>>> > >>notion of heteroglossia, which has both a sociology of social
>>>> > >>divisions aspect and also an "axiological" one, which manifests
>>>> > >>social norms, attitudes, values, etc. According to SFL discourse
>>>> > >>theory, we ought then to expect to see these lower-triangle
>>>> > >>mediations show up in genre and register differences, right down to
>>>> > >>the level of linguistic choices and frequency distributions.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>If there is, among the waiting queue of papers-seeking-comment on
>>>> > >>xmca, any which offer us concrete cases where we might pursue these
>>>> > >>possibilities, I'd be very interested to see them. Especially if
>>>> > >>they contain any specific data on language-using or other
>>>> > >>sign-using practices in concrete joint-action activities where the
>>>> > >>norms and practices of one or more communities are being brought
>>>> > >>together (uneasily? or too easily?).
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>Heracleitus wrote that 'the road up and the road down are the same
>>>> > >>road', and maybe in triangle-land the way across runs through such
>>>> > >>up-and-down roads. I sure know that my own research does!
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>JAY.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>At 12:36 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
>>>> > >>>In a discussion with Gordon that was mostly about other matters I
>>>> > raised the
>>>> > >>>issue of the extent to which it is appropriate to think of the
>>>> > mediations in
>>>> > >>>Yrjo's expanded triangle as only occuring through the apex, and where
>>>> > >>>subject-subject mediated interaction (including discourse) was
>>>> not also
>>>> > >>>represented there. Don't social rules mediate the activity and
>>>> > person-person
>>>> > >>>interactions. Are there not pathways of mediations from subject to
>>>> > community
>>>> > >>>AND to mediators at the top?
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>>I have been thinking how important it is when using these highly
>>>> > abstract
>>>> > >>>representations to rise to concrete examples and, having done so, to
>>>> > compare
>>>> > >>>the ways in which different representation highlight different
>>>> features
>>>> > of
>>>> > >>>the overall system in a way that is more complentary than
>>>> > contradictory.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>>Are people about done with a focus on Gordon's article? There are a
>>>> > couple
>>>> > >>>of people who might benefit from having their work read and discussed
>>>> > on
>>>> > >>>XMCA and want advice.
>>>> > >>>I am happy to stay with Gordon's piece which has been a rich
>>>> source of
>>>> > >>>discussion, but if people want to put it into the store of
>>>> > >>>to-be-returned-to-when-needed contributions, we might put up
>>>> something
>>>> > new
>>>> > >>>where junior folks are seeking critique and advice.
>>>> > >>>mike
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>>On 10/13/07, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> > After a way-too-busy last several weeks, I've finally caught
>>>> up with
>>>> > >>> > reading a lot of xmca posts, and especially those about Gordon
>>>> > Wells'
>>>> > >>> > article on discoursing as an operational mediation of activities.
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> > I generally agree with Gordon's point of view, but with some
>>>> > >>> > exceptions and a few shifts in conceptual framework. As this was
>>>> > >>> > obviously a very complex topic, I'm just going to make a few
>>>> points
>>>> > >>> > here and attach the notes I wrote to myself to articulate my own
>>>> > >>> > position in more detail.
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> > We surely do need better ways to talk about both the similarities
>>>> > and
>>>> > >>> > the differences in how activity is mediated by talk vs.
>>>> artifactual
>>>> > >>> > tools. Both are indeed material, and both are, I believe, also
>>>> > >>> > potentially (though tools not always so in practice) semiotic. The
>>>> > >>> > ways in which they are mediational for an activity may be more
>>>> > >>> > constitutive (the activity unthinkable apart from them) or more
>>>> > >>> > optionally instrumental (the activity may be clumsy or fail
>>>> without
>>>> > >>> > them, but can be imagined without them). Signs are one kind of
>>>> tool.
>>>> > >>> > Or better said, I think, material objects or material processes
>>>> > (like
>>>> > >>> > phonation) can be used-as-tools-in-activity, and are not
>>>> > >>> > tools-as-such except when used-as-tools-in-activity, and likewise
>>>> > for
>>>> > >>> > tools that are (or are also) used-as-signs-in-activity. The
>>>> special
>>>> > >>> > character of sign-use distinguishing it from non-semiotic tool-use
>>>> > >>> > has to do with the difference between the material
>>>> > >>> > affordances-for-use of tool-qualities as such and the possible
>>>> > social
>>>> > >>> > meanings of those qualities and ways-of-using. This is key and
>>>> > >>> > complex, and it's the main subject of the attached notes.
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> > I am not so clear about Gordon's proposal to take talk-in-activity
>>>> > as
>>>> > >>> > operation-level in Leontiev's sense. I've always thought that
>>>> there
>>>> > >>> > have to be more than just three levels in the analysis of an
>>>> > >>> > activity, even if the relations between operations and
>>>> actions, vs.
>>>> > >>> > the different kinds of relations between actions and
>>>> activities, are
>>>> > >>> > key to understanding the possible types of relations among the
>>>> many
>>>> > >>> > levels. Within talk, there are already many levels, articulating
>>>> > >>> > among themselves in both the sound-to-word way and in the
>>>> > >>> > sentence-to-paragraph way (cf. 'double articulation' in classic
>>>> > >>> > linguistic theory). And between talk and larger activities in
>>>> which
>>>> > >>> > it is embedded and for which it is constitutive or instrumental to
>>>> > >>> > some degree, there are also multiple levels of (or links in a
>>>> chain
>>>> > >>> > of) interpretance, ala Peirce. More on this in the notes.
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> > I've always appreciated Gordon's dialogical version of Engestrom's
>>>> > >>> > triangles, based on his reading of Bakhtin (with which I mainly
>>>> > >>> > agree). But I wonder if in this formulation we don't somewhat
>>>> > >>> > background a key element of the top triangle -- that the use of
>>>> > >>> > mediational means is a digression, or displacement, from direct
>>>> > >>> > subject-on-object or here subject-on-subject action? It's a
>>>> > different
>>>> > >>> > activity with the mediation of tool or sign than without it,
>>>> even if
>>>> > >>> > the same goal is reached. In the subject-on-subject version, while
>>>> > we
>>>> > >>> > can and should pay attention to the emergence of joint goals and
>>>> > >>> > outcomes, or on the conflict of goals, etc., I think the core
>>>> issue
>>>> > >>> > is linguistic manipulation and control as a displacement from
>>>> direct
>>>> > >>> > physical manipulation and control (though clearly we often do
>>>> both,
>>>> > >>> > and this may be especially important in early development, as
>>>> it is
>>>> > >>> > in learning/teaching bike riding, etc.). But we also need to think
>>>> > >>> > about how language, or sign-use in general, serves to directly
>>>> > >>> > influence the Other, and how it differs from, say, pushing them
>>>> > >>> > bodily or hitting them with a stick (tool). Differs both for the
>>>> > >>> > better, and for the worse, in terms of power and control, or
>>>> > >>> > resistance. My sense is that there is a lot in this more
>>>> > >>> > uncomfortable aspect of linguistic mediation to help us understand
>>>> > >>> > how and why signs are used in joint activity. Historically,
>>>> not all
>>>> > >>> > joint activity has been voluntary.
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> > I apologize for the occasional opacity of the attached notes where
>>>> > >>> > they reflect my inner-speech.
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> > JAY.
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> > Jay Lemke
>>>> > >>> > Professor
>>>> > >>> > University of Michigan
>>>> > >>> > School of Education
>>>> > >>> > 610 East University
>>>> > >>> > Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> > Tel. 734-763-9276
>>>> > >>> > Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
>>>> > >>> > Website.
>>>> <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > >>> > xmca mailing list
>>>> > >>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> > >>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>> >
>>>> > >>>_______________________________________________
>>>> > >>>xmca mailing list
>>>> > >>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> > >>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>Jay Lemke
>>>> > >>Professor
>>>> > >>University of Michigan
>>>> > >>School of Education
>>>> > >>610 East University
>>>> > >>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>Tel. 734-763-9276
>>>> > >>Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
>>>> > >>Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>>> > >>_______________________________________________
>>>> > >>xmca mailing list
>>>> > >>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> > >>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380
>>>> > > 9435, mobile 0409 358 651
>>>> > >
>>>> > >_______________________________________________
>>>> > >xmca mailing list
>>>> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Jay Lemke
>>>> > Professor
>>>> > University of Michigan
>>>> > School of Education
>>>> > 610 East University
>>>> > Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>> >
>>>> > Tel. 734-763-9276
>>>> > Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
>>>> > Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > xmca mailing list
>>>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>> >
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>Jay Lemke
>>>Professor
>>>University of Michigan
>>>School of Education
>>>610 East University
>>>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>
>>>Tel. 734-763-9276
>>>Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
>>>Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>xmca mailing list
>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>> mobile 0409 358 651
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>xmca mailing list
>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>Jay Lemke
>Professor
>University of Michigan
>School of Education
>610 East University
>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>
>Tel. 734-763-9276
>Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
>Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Thu Oct 18 19:21 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 14:25:43 PST