Re: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object

Here is the Billett paper. I hope Stephen is on xmca, if not, perhaps
someone will contact him
to participate? I believe Ana is reading.
mike

On Dec 27, 2007 12:41 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Here is Anna's paper, but I don't seem to have a copy of
> Relational Interdependence Between Social and Individual Agency in Work
> and
> Working Life, Stephen Billett, MCA, v13 (1) pp. 53-69.
>
> In discussion I held in relation to both papers that the authors made an
> individual/society dichotomy which then presents us with an unbridgeable
> gap. An amalgam between activity and culture is as I recall one of the
> issues I took with Anna's paper, and in Steve's case, I pointed to a naive
> concept of the individual as a free agent. But my paper currently under
> discussion takes up the issues in depth.
>
> All three papers address themselves to the problem: are individuals in any
> sense "free agents" rather than creatures of their times and their social
> position? If so, how can we theorise this as social psychologists?
>
> I can't go past trying to find an answer to this question.
>
> Andy
> At 12:12 PM 27/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
> >Fine idea to re-post, Andy. In fact, important to have all three articles
> >collected as a "discussion note" on XMCA. But that will have to await the
> >holidays.
> >
> >But meatime, if you or someone would be so kind as to post pdf files of
> >the two articles
> >to XMCA, we can perhaps all benefit by greater depth of vision. Seems
> like
> >a precis
> >of the narrative so far would be helpful as an "advanced organizer." :-)
> >
> >We will also need a lot of good luck to have people actually read all
> >three articles to that
> >people are not talking past each other!!
> >
> >mike
> >
> >On Dec 27, 2007 11:57 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Mike,
> > > Well I do feel that my paper has not been engaged with.
> > >
> > > It was written as a continuation of two previous discussions on this
> list
> > > over MCA journal articles - Anna Stetsenko's of October 2005 and Steve
> > > Billett's of December 2006 - concerning the "problem of the
> individual",
> > > the problem that David so eloquently described as the subject being
> like
> > > the "disappearing middle classes", squeezed between structuralism and
> > > individualism,
> > >
> > > Perhaps if these first two statements in the dialogue were to be
> > > re-posted,
> > > the context of my article would be clearer?
> > >
> > > Andy
> > > At 11:11 AM 27/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
> > > >Great help, David, thanks. And Andy and Paul.
> > > >
> > > >David- In Cultural Psychology I also level the charge of a focus on
> > > >instrumentality - object oriented-ness at Leontiev. But you can find
> > > places
> > > >in his writing where the "object" is a
> > > >person, a sujbect, and he talks about subject-subject relations.
> Yrjo
> > > has
> > > >some such quote
> > > >in Learning by Expanding.
> > > >
> > > >I find Leontiev VERY difficult to read. I worked for serveral years
> on
> > > the
> > > >translation of his book
> > > >on development and finally returned it to Progress. Defeated. I often
> > > >struggle with what is
> > > >there. I do know he labored under conditions where his close
> association
> > > >with Jews and the
> > > >charges of "signocentricism" thrown at LSV, idealism(!) put him in a
> very
> > > >difficult position, to
> > > >say the least. I have heard it said that he personally behaved badly
> at
> > > >times. And who in those
> > > >conditions did not "behave badly" who lived to tell about it?
> > > >
> > > >My reading is not either/or. It was an extraordinarily difficult time
> to
> > > be
> > > >decent, as Luria himself
> > > >is said to have said. It is up to us, the living, to learn what we
> can
> > > and
> > > >make up our own minds.
> > > >
> > > >We do have the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants. And
> time.
> > > >
> > > >Leontiev is incorrect in so far as he agrees to any simple version of
> the
> > > >idea that human
> > > >evolution REPLACES biological evolution, and it very possible to read
> > > >Leontiev in that way.
> > > >Here I see the influence of Stalinism directly on activity theory.
> > > Leontiev
> > > >handled it one way,
> > > >Rubenshtein another. They both lived to an old age and died of what
> we
> > > refer
> > > >to as
> > > >"natural causes." Andrei Brushlinsky, Rubenshtein's loyal student,
> when
> > > he
> > > >was head of
> > > >the Institute of Psychology, argued fiercely with our Soviet-then-
> > > Russian
> > > >colleagues. He
> > > >accused them (Leontiev in particular) because he under-valued the
> > > subject.
> > > >
> > > >The evidence of biologically highly canalazed, million year old,
> forms of
> > > >highly tuned
> > > >"primitive circuits" that are activated prior to the cortex on the
> one
> > > hand,
> > > >and connect to pervasive
> > > >features of the environment (variously called "modules," "skeletal
> > > concepts"
> > > >) is to important
> > > >to ignore. Culture is our way of dealing with con-specifics and the
> rest
> > > of
> > > >the world,
> > > >but is nOT outside nature.
> > > >
> > > >But this is a topic for another time.
> > > >
> > > >At THIS time, I'll stop this overlong note, say thanks again for
> > > provoking
> > > >interesting re-illuminations, and wish us all a productive and
> friendly
> > > >2008. After all, it beats
> > > >working for a living? Right?
> > > >:-)
> > > >mike
> > > >
> > > >On Dec 26, 2007 10:08 PM, Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A mythological metaphorical reflection:
> > > > >
> > > > > In the beginning was the Instrument/Word (Verb)
> > > > > and so the Heavens (Subject)
> > > > > and the Earth (Object)
> > > > > were created.
> > > > >
> > > > > And isn't it notable that in subject-verb-object formulation,
> the
> > > verb
> > > > > is the only term that refers to a type of word, while both subject
> and
> > > > > object aren't a type of word at all but necessarily nouns or
> their
> > > > > palimpsests (pronouns). Such a difference, at least for me,
> casts
> > > > doubt on
> > > > > any claim that such a formulation constitutes a concept. Besides,
> > > what
> > > > > happens with SOV languages? Beyond that, haven't linguists
> abandoned
> > > this
> > > > > formulation for Topic-Comment and other formulations?
> > > > >
> > > > > Further, I must admit that I really loved diagramming sentences
> idn
> > > 5th
> > > > > grade.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Dear Andy and Mike:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's what I've got out of the discussion so far (though I don't
> > > expect
> > > > > Andy to agree with any of this!):
> > > > >
> > > > > a) The "subject" is in bad shape, rather like the "hollowed out"
> > > middle
> > > > > class. On the one (extreme) hand, individuals appear to have
> virtually
> > > no
> > > > > agency. On the other (even more extreme) hand, the agency market
> as
> > > been
> > > > > well and truly cornered by large corporations and nation-states.
> There
> > > is
> > > > > almost nothing in between: movements, communities, neighbourhoods
> and
> > > even
> > > > > families have been either sublated or extirpated.
> > > > >
> > > > > India is a particularly horrible example of this: community,
> caste,
> > > and
> > > > > even religion have little meaning outside a "communalist" (really
> > > statist
> > > > > and corporatist) ideology. I'm not sure if "nation" ever meant
> much of
> > > > > anything!
> > > > >
> > > > > b) The origins of CHAT lie in a concern for the subject because
> the
> > > human
> > > > > psyche is what we theorize. However, we theorize it by relating it
> to
> > > > > "activity" (I have some problems with this bit, as you've probably
> > > > noticed),
> > > > > and of course ANL (but not LSV) theorized "activity" as chiefly
> > > > > object-oriented. For this reason, there is an objectivist bent in
> much
> > > > early
> > > > > CHAT which leaves us somewhat at a loss to explain how individuals
> > > might
> > > > > exercise agency, particularly under capitalist conditions where
> the
> > > market
> > > > > has been cornered by corporatist, statist, or communalist
> entities.
> > > > >
> > > > > ANL's work on "Activity, Consciousness and the Personality"
> contains a
> > > lot
> > > > > of evidence of this. Notice how indignantly he rejects the idea
> that
> > > what
> > > > > children learn is to play "the role" of a son or daughter or
> student
> > > (p.
> > > > > 104). But it is very hard to see how else they could learn what
> their
> > > > > "mission" is!
> > > > >
> > > > > c) The solution is to re-colonize social theory. In order to this
> you
> > > go
> > > > > back to Hegel. Here you remind us that that the subject can be
> seen
> > > "from
> > > > > above" (the universal), "from below" (the individual), but also
> "from
> > > > the in
> > > > > between" (the particular).
> > > > >
> > > > > Because I teach grammar, I think of this as three sentences, each
> > > having a
> > > > > different position on LSV's "measure of generality" (Chapter Six
> of
> > > > > "Thinking and Speech"):
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Do you like apples? (the universal)
> > > > > 2) Yes, I'd like an apple. (the particular)
> > > > > 3) That juicy red one, please. (the individual)
> > > > >
> > > > > We are not looking at three different apples or three kinds of
> apples,
> > > and
> > > > > we are certainly not three three different speakers or three
> different
> > > > > hearers. The apples are the same, and so are the people; only the
> way
> > > of
> > > > > thinking about them has changed. In the same way "subject" can be
> > > > individual
> > > > > AND cultural AND social at one and the same time.
> > > > >
> > > > > But this is why I think it MATTERS that for ANL mediation was
> > > objective
> > > > > and external and linked to tool-using labour activity while for
> LSV it
> > > was
> > > > > two edged, external-internal, and linked to something that was
> > > individual
> > > > > AND social AND cultural, namely word meaning. It seems to me that
> > > ANL's
> > > > > version is ineluctably OBJECT oriented, but LSV's is not.
> > > > > Subject-Verb-Object, the paradigm for ANL's unit of analysis, is
> > > really
> > > > just
> > > > > ONE kind of sentence, and it turns out to be not a very common
> kind,
> > > not
> > > > > even in English.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that it is VERY interesting that Hegel tells us that there
> are
> > > > > three paradigmatic kinds of mediation and not just two (tools,
> signs,
> > > and
> > > > > CHILDREN). I also agree that this shows a rather unusually
> materialist
> > > > bent,
> > > > > and it makes me believe that Marx really did find the old man
> standing
> > > on
> > > > > his head.
> > > > >
> > > > > But it's for precisely THIS reason I find ANL's apparent
> Lamarckianism
> > > and
> > > > > Lysenkoism so disquieting. Look at this:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The principal progress in development of the brain made snce the
> > > coming
> > > > > of modern man has apparently been that the function of fixing the
> > > dynamic
> > > > > structures built up has been gradually corticalized, i.e. the role
> > > played
> > > > > by subcortical centres in relation to the accumulation of species
> > > > biological
> > > > > experience has been transferred to the cortex, the organ of
> > > ontogenetic
> > > > > experience. (...) While one has to speak, first and foremost, of
> the
> > > > > formation of hereditarily fixed constructions, these changes are
> not
> > > > > produced by biological heredity at the level of man but in the
> process
> > > of
> > > > > assimilation described above, which also constitutes the mechanism
> of
> > > > social
> > > > > 'inheritance'. (...) Man's psyche is thus a function of the higher
> > > brain
> > > > > structures that arose in him ontogenetically in the course of his
> > > mastering
> > > > > of historically mouled forms of activity in relation to the human
> > > world
> > > > > about him; that aspect of man's development which is
> physicologically
> > > > > expressed in the reportudction,
> > > > > change, an complication of these structure in succeeding
> generations,
> > > is
> > > > > also the process of the psyche's historical development." (pp.
> > > 324-325,
> > > > > "Problems of the Development of Mind")
> > > > >
> > > > > I would MUCH rather leave the "dynamic structures" outside the
> brain
> > > > > altogether (the "supercortical features" that Luria and Bella talk
> > > about!)
> > > > > than to have to subscribe to the idea that what we learn changes
> the
> > > shape
> > > > > of our cortexes and these cortexes get inherited by our children.
> > > That's
> > > > > objectivism made flesh.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > Seoul National University of Education
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> > > Search.
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > >
> > > Andy Blunden :
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>tel (H) +61 3
> > 9380 9435,
> > > mobile 0409 358 651
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>
> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> mobile 0409 358 651
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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