[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie



Mike and Helen
your comment that different ways of defining/interpreting provide glimpses of a theoretical field which provide the LENSES through which we interpret the processes of common interest is a central insight for articulating how we ought to proceed.  The centrality of the quality of emotional relationships in shared activities seems to be a key variable and this points to the constructs of "intersubjectivity" and "recognition" and "response-ability" as terms that speak to this relational perspective.  
Larry  
 ----- Original Message -----
From: Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@education.monash.edu.au>
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:00 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie
To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Absolutely agreed! But I think the type of communication that 
> goes on in
> most schools (at least the ones I've been in) between teachers and
> students is way different to the type of social communication being
> advocated by the Golden Key schools. I think part of the problem 
> is that
> obshchenie is probably ineffable as well as untranslatable!
> 
> Thanks,
> Helen
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:24 am
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> 
> > obuchenie without obshchenie is a little difficult to imagine, 
> helen.> communication devoid of affect seems to offer a similar 
> set of 
> > problems.
> > Again, in every case of "definition" we have (a largely 
> unexplicated,> because you can never say everything about 
> anything) a large,
> > pre-supposed set of theoretical assumptions about the 
> processes being
> > defined.
> > 
> > What makes discussion of these cases always (potentially) useful
> > is that different ways of defining/interpreting provide 
> glimpses of 
> > thetheoretical field which provides the lens through which we 
> and our
> > interlocutors are interpreting/delimiting the processes of 
> > (potentially!)common interest.
> > 
> > mike
> > (PS-- My spelling and typing are no better in transliterated 
> > Russian than in
> > English)  :-((
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Helen Grimmett <
> > helen.grimmett@education.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > A group from my university attended the Vygotsky/Golden Key Summer
> > > School earlier in the year and returned home all talking 
> about the
> > > importance of obshchenie (this is the spelling we have been 
> using 
> > -
> > > funny that it is a cross between Mike and Katrina's). While 
> they 
> > said> that Elena Kravtsova translated it as 'social 
> communication' 
> > she also
> > > made it clear that this was not really an adequate 
> translation for
> > > capturing the true expansive meaning of the word.
> > >
> > > In reference to my earlier message, pasted below, I'm 
> wondering 
> > whether> it is actually 'obshchenie' that is the unique 
> property of 
> > 'obuchenie'> (teaching/learning)? - i.e. it is all about the 
> > special social/emotional
> > > relationships between and among teachers and learners in the joint
> > > activity of obuchenie that make the difference.
> > >
> > > Perhaps some Russian speakers can help further?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Helen.
> > >
> > > Earlier message: Helen wrote....
> > > I am currently attempting to use obuchenie as a central
> > > concept in my PhD research, arguing that perhaps using a 
> 'new' 
> > word with
> > > teachers makes it easier for them to think about teaching 
> and 
> > learning> in a new way (as a conjoint practice that both 
> teachers 
> > and learners
> > > engage in together).
> > >
> > > I have argued that it is difficult to assign new 
> > conceptualisations to
> > > existing terms we have traditionally conceptualised in 
> different 
> > ways> and that perhaps using teaching/learning still provides 
> an 
> > image of
> > > simply bringing together the two contradictory practices of 
> > teaching and
> > > learning (as understood in their old way) rather than 
> helping 
> > teachers> think about it in a new way as a dialectical unity 
> which 
> > has its own
> > > unique properties (more than the sum of its parts).
> > >
> > > I then go on in my proposal for confirmation of candidature 
> paper to
> > > spend nearly 6000 words trying to explain what the unique 
> > properties of
> > > obuchenie are. In a nutshell I talk about the ZPD (although 
> > taking a
> > > holistic approach to development recognising the importance 
> of the
> > > affective dimension alongside the more typical cognitive 
> approach);> > intersubjectivity and perezhivanie; authentic 
> meaning and motives 
> > for> participating in the activity; and recognising that all 
> of 
> > this occurs
> > > within a particular cultural-historical context that both 
> > determines and
> > > is determined by the interactions of the participants.
> > >
> > > I would be interested to hear what others think are the 
> unique 
> > qualities> of obuchenie and why/whether translations as even 
> > teaching/learning or
> > > teaching-learning may be inadequate for generating new 
> > understandings> amongst teachers.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Katarina Rodina <katja@student.uv.uio.no>
> > > Date: Monday, November 23, 2009 4:30 am
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie
> > > To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> > > <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >
> > > > The problem with terminology is a tricky one. The 
> understanding of
> > > > terminology in Russian Psychology as "communication", "social
> > > > interaction"and "Obchenie" is far from being straightforward.
> > > >
> > > > I've tried to investigate the problem of  
> communication 
> > (obchenie) in
> > > > Vygotsky's, Leontiev's and so-called neo-Vygotskian 
> research (see
> > > > belowRodina (2006)) .
> > > >
> > > > The problem of communication as a social relation (rus. 
> obchenie,> > > German"Verkehr") is highlighted in the works of 
> A.N. Leontiev,
> > > > Zaporozhets and
> > > > M. Lisina, i.e. the concept of early ontogeny of communication
> > > > (obchenie)as a communicative activity (not speech activity 
> as an
> > > > object of study as
> > > > in psycholinguistics). Lisina's theory of early emotional
> > > > communication/obchenia as a Leading Acitivity has much in 
> > common with
> > > > Trevarthen's concept of early inter-subjective 
> communication and
> > > > socio-emotional development in early ontogeny. Bodrova & Leong
> > > > (1996: 51)
> > > > could also be mentioned as a contemporary variant of 
> Elkonin's and
> > > > Lisina's psychological concept of early emotional
> > > > communication/obcheniawith Tronick`s (1989) "interactional 
> > synchrony".> >
> > > > Lisina's understanding of communication/obchenia as a 
> > psychological> > category was based on Vygotsky's cultural-
> > historical theory of
> > > > developmentof HMF and Leontiev's activity theory (see for 
> example> > > Lisina, M. (1985)
> > > > Child-Adults-Peers: Patterns of Communication. Progress 
> > Publishers;> > Karpov,Y.(2005). The Neo-Vygotskian Approach to 
> > Child Development.
> > > > Cambridge University Press; Bodrova, E. & Leong, B.(1996). 
> > Tools of
> > > > theMind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education.
> > > > Prentice-Hall,
> > > > Inc., pp. 50-55; Rodina, K. (2006).The Neo-Vygotskian 
> Approach to
> > > > EarlyCommunication: A Cultural-Historical and Activity based
> > > > Concept of
> > > > Ontogeny. Nordic Psychology,Vol.58, No.4, 331-354).
> > > >
> > > > Katarina
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, November 21, 2009 17:22, mike cole wrote:
> > > > > " Since communication is the precise measure of the 
> > possibility of
> > > > social
> > > > > organization, of good understanding among men (sic), relations
> > > > that are
> > > > beyond its range are not truly social..
> > > > > GH Cooley, 1894.
> > > > >
> > > > > for Cooley, like Pierce, "mind is made concrete in culture."
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------
> > > > > Cooley's first book: The theory of transportation. No 
> > accident that.
> > > > >
> > > > > mike
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Katarina A. Rodina
> > > > Research Fellow (PhD)/Logoped,MNLL
> > > > Department of Special Needs Education,
> > > > University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1140 Blindern,
> > > > NO-0318 Oslo, Norway
> > > > Phone: +47 41 108 408/Fax:  +47 22 85 80 21
> > > > E-mail: katarina.rodina@isp.uio.no
> > > > 
> http://staffdirectory.uv.uio.no/singleview/v1/index.php?user=katja> > > http://katarinarodina.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > > > Head of Russo-Norwegian Academic Relations,
> > > > The Vygotsky Institute of Psychology/RSUH
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca