[xmca] A Good Class or a Good Show?

[David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>]

Mike, I think that the answer (to the temporary lull in the discussion of the Gratier et al article) is of course all of the below: final exams, end of quarter, and a certain amount of delicacy over an article that at least some of us see as deeply problematic (see Jay's comments, especially).
 
I often think it's more useful to bring whatever discussion we are currently having (e.g. bodies and artifacts, emotion and cognition) around to the article at hand rather than vice versa. 
 
Some of our most successful and fruitful discussions have (alas for me!) also been some of our most general. 
 
This is partly thanks to the very articulate and ardent philosophers on the list, but it's also because general means inclusive, transdisciplinary, a party to which every party's invited except the bouncer.
 
Now it seems to me that the Gratier et al. article really does have a bearing on both the "bodies and artefacts" thread and the "emotion and cognition" one. As I already said, I think the "bodies and artefacts" connection is INTONATION and STRESS: this is the way that gesture really "goes underground" in language, and so I think that Gratier et al (and also Wolff-Michael Roth) are right to look at it in all its spectrographic splendor. But the level of detail we get that way has to somehow be harnessed to a more macrogenetic perspective to do much good.
 
This time I have a comment on the "emotion and cognition" thread. In Chapter Two of Thinking and Speech, Vygotsky spends a LOT of time quoting Bleuler. I've just been reading Bleuler's book on autism in the library. Vygotsky likes him because of his rejection of the over-extended content of the autistic function (actually, as we shall see, an over-extended conception of the reality function)..
 
We can see, even if Bleuler cannot, the beginnings of Hegelian triad describing the emergence of higher EMOTIONAL functions. The first, relatively unmediated response, to reality is an instance of the reality function, but it is based on perception and sensation. Here the James-Lange formula that we feel sad because we perceive ourselves crying or we feel frightened because we feel the sensations of our body running away from a bear may be a useful metaphor (except for the obvious homunculus problem it raises), or at least a catchy inversion of the individual subjectivist view of the genesis of affect.
 
>From this primal, biological response a second, more fully psychological response is born. As Bleuler points out, it requires a relatively complex response, because it involves the recollection of sensation, and even turning away from the immediate sources of sensation. This is the autistic function proper, and it is not genetically primary. When this response becomes linked to itself, rather than to objective events, we get “irrealist” logic, the pleasure principle, the associative links of dreams which Vygotsky refuses to call “symbolic”.
 
Finally, there is a third response, which is “realistic” in the sense that it is oriented towards an objective state of affairs existing between people rather than within them. Yet it is mediated, by recollection and reflection, and above all by language. Here is where we must look for higher affective functions, culturally mediated emotions, and conceptually based aesthetics. 
 
This third response is also where we need to look to find the basis of a Spinozan—a socialist—ethics; like the second response, it considers human pleasure and the satisfaction of desire to be a positive good. But like the first response, it is objective, in the sense that it is not individualistic but socially shared through and through. Bleuler, a biologically oriented psychologist, cannot get us this far. But Vygotsky can!
 
When I read Gratier et al. I am impressed by how many of the descriptions of the Bridging Cultures Classroom contain descriptions of positive affect, and how many of the non-Bridging Cultures Classroom are rather negative.
 
But of course a good class cannot simply be a chain of what Wolff-Michael calls emotionally positive valences; some such chains are going to be at the lowest level of physical response (e.g. the satisfaction of desire, such as when kids get treats in class) and a good many more are going to be at the level Bleuler is calling autistic; the chain of "one positive valence after another" that we often see as a substitute for plot in children's literature and a substitute for a script in kids' movies.
 
So we need more than glowing descriptions in order to see what experienced teachers see at a glance: the difference between a good show and a good class! One of my grads is working on this right now; the idea is to test the positive valence of particular topics in a conversation by counting the number of times they get brought up voluntarily by one child and continued by others. 
 
We initially thought we would use this technique just to find out who the kids wanted to talk about: did they want to talk about the characters in the textbook, or about their teacher an their classmates? Surprisingly, they often chose the textbook characters, and they were particularly interested in...the TEACHER character. In their chat about real people, they also prefer the teacher as a topic. Perhaps this is part of OUR culture, though!
 
While writing this, though, a problem occurred to me. The topics that get the most "hits" and which run the longest in classroom conversations really represent two rather contradictory things: the ability to stimulate interventions from the most voluble participants, and the ability to generalize to the interests of the greatest possible number. On xmca, of course, that means topics of a certain generality and abstractness. In our classroom data, though, that tends to mean the teacher.
 
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education 
 

--- On Sun, 12/13/09, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:


From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] bodies and artifacts
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sunday, December 13, 2009, 8:38 AM


My apologies for posting the les treilles paper twice. it did not show on my
screen. As "recompense" here is a review of a book that
promotes the idea of "bio-cultural co-constructivism" without mention of
Vygotsky anywhere. Perhaps, as a result, it leads some of its adherents into
some (in my opinion) inappropriate reduction of culture to "the
environment," thereby opening up a very old, very stinky, can of worms.

Question: Many people on XMCA voted to discuss the
"Tacit Communicative Style and Cultural Attunement in Classroom
Interaction"<http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content%7Edb=all%7Econtent=a915635308>article,
but very few have followed David's lead in discussing it directly.
Is it because of final exam time on both a quarter and semester system in
the US? Or voting as a prelude to spectatorship? Where are those voters?

mike

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:20 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> The book description came through, Larry. Attached is the most recent
> Fonagy article i could find that appeared general. His work looks very
> interesting, thanks. I have not read it yet, but that fact that Gergeley is
> a co-author indicates that issues of intentionality are involved and I am
> very curious to see if the effects you talk about are connected with changes
> at 9months. First guess, it would fit with Tomasello and Vygotsky, but if it
> fits with Trevarthan and primary intersubjectivity it will be a suprise.
> We'll see.
>
> A brief paper on this topic I wrote for an audience for whom the idea that
> culture mediates human activity was a novelty, and that there is a two way
> relation between "natural" and "cultural" is also attached.
>
> thanks a lot for the pointer.
> mike
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Vera
>> I sent an attachment through CHAT but I don't think it went through.
>> Fonagy and three other authors wrote the book "Affect regulation,
>> Mentalization, and the Development of the Self.
>> It is an extension of Bowlby's and Winnicott's approach (He works at the
>> same Tavistock institute in London) and its interweaving with his
>> understanding of Hegel and intersubjectivity theory.
>> The summary of infant studies from a relational framework is excellent.
>> Some of the "clinical" approaches in the second half of the book may be
>> critqued.
>> Also I wonder how feminist scholars may critique the focus on "mothers"?
>>
>> However the detail (though sometimes overwhelming) is systematically
>> presented and builds a coherent perspective on the centrality of relational
>> processes to the development of subjectivity.
>> Larry
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Vera Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu>
>> Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:04 pm
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] bodies and artifacts
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> > Hi Larry,
>> > I would be interested in a link to Fonagy's recent publications.
>> > I am
>> > related to him and am doubly curious about his work.
>> > Thanks, Vera
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Larry Purss" <lpurss@shaw.ca>
>> > To: <ablunden@mira.net>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> > <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> > Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:51 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [xmca] bodies and artifacts
>> >
>> >
>> > Andy
>> >
>> > I believe the reason we are cautious about brain research is it
>> > usually
>> > implies "biology" as foundational to being human.  The
>> > reason I mention
>> > Fonagy and others exploring the foundational premises of infant
>> > development
>> > is they are starting from intersubjectivity as prior to
>> > subjectivity and it
>> > is only within relational contexts that a sense of subjectivity
>> > arises or
>> > emerges. They are using brain research to support this
>> > relational paradigm.
>> > Larry
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> > Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009 7:28 pm
>> > Subject: Re: [xmca] bodies and artifacts
>> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> >
>> > > Larry,
>> > >
>> > > In my first forrays into this discussion on emotion, I found
>> > > myself introducing talk of physiological observations in a
>> > > way I would never have thought of doing in relation to
>> > > cognition. After reading about the 300 years of reflections
>> > > on the physiology of emotion in Vygotsky's article, I was
>> > > left asking myself: why? Why do I think it is important to
>> > > investigate the physiology of emotion, while I hold such a
>> > > low opinion of the place of physiological investigations in
>> > > understanding the normal process of cognition.
>> > >
>> > > Consciousness is the outcome of the intersection of two
>> > > objective processes: human physiology and human behaviour.
>> > > This is equally true of both emotion and cognition.
>> > >
>> > > While the marketing, military and medial industries are
>> > > spending billions of dollars on neurological investigations,
>> > > I would think that CHAT people would be interested in
>> > > questions like the role of emotion in learning, behaviour,
>> > > addicition, the formation of social bonds, and so on,
>> > > investigating such questions with dual stimulation type
>> > > experiments, with artifacts that are more or less affect-laden.
>> > >
>> > > Andy
>> > >
>> > > Larry Purss wrote:
>> > > > Mike
>> > > > Your comment that this leaves us only at the starting gate of
>> > > understanding how bodies can be "written on"  points to the
>> > > research and reflection on the relation of changes in the brain
>> > > mediated by culture.
>> > > > One area of research that is exploring how the brain is
>> > > changed via mediation is intersubjective infant developmental
>> > > studies that are mapping physiological changes in one person's
>> > > brain that "mirrors" similar  physiological brain
>> > > changes  being generated during the activity of the
>> > > other  person.  Fonagy is doing research in this area
>> > > and has written a detailed summary of the research in this area.
>> > > His term for this intersubjective process is "mentalization".
>> > > >
>> > > > Larry
>> > > >
>> > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>> > > > Date: Saturday, December 12, 2009 12:19 pm
>> > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] bodies and artifacts
>> > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> > > >
>> > > >> I do not have all this sorted out by a long shot, but my own
>> > > way
>> > > >> of thinking
>> > > >> about the issue is that humans are hybrids, really complex
>> > > >> one's. Their
>> > > >> brains have LITERALLY been shaped by prior genrations of
>> > > >> mediation of
>> > > >> activity through material artifacts, their brains (and often
>> > > >> other parts of
>> > > >> the bodies) cannot operate normally without inclusion of
>> > > >> artifacts, they can
>> > > >> be "written on" as jay points out.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> The problem is that this leaves us only at the starting gate
>> > > for
>> > > >> furtherdevelopment of this point of view. I found that
>> > > >> experimental study I sent
>> > > >> around sort of interest in this regard, even though it
>> > > provides
>> > > >> such sketchy
>> > > >> detail and assumes so much about its cultural content and
>> > > >> organization. The
>> > > >> developmental implications, which in our current discussion
>> > > >> would mean, the
>> > > >> organization of hybridity during ontogeny, which in turn has
>> > > >> implicationsfor the cognition/emotion
>> > > >> discussion.
>> > > >> mike
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Jay Lemke
>> > > >> <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> One of the ways I have found useful to think about the body
>> > > in
>> > > >> relation to
>> > > >>> semiotic mediation is to see the body as, among other
>> > > things,
>> > > >> a semiotic
>> > > >>> artifact.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> What I mean by semiotic artifact is a material object or
>> > > >> substrate that can
>> > > >>> be written on and read from, much like a printed page or an
>> > > >> architectural> drawing. Written on, in the general semiotic
>> > > >> sense, not necessarily in
>> > > >>> words, but in signs of some kind: meaningful features that
>> > > can
>> > > >> be "read" or
>> > > >>> made sense of by people (or nonhumans, but that's another
>> > > >> story) in that our
>> > > >>> meaning-mediated world, and our actions that respond to
>> > that world
>> > > >>> (including by trying to change or re-create it or just
>> > > imagine
>> > > >> it in some
>> > > >>> new way), are affected by our encounter with the features of
>> > > >> the semiotic
>> > > >>> object, according to some community interpretive practices,
>> > > >> with our own
>> > > >>> individual variations on them.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> At a very obvious level, bodies can be dressed up in signs:
>> > > >> hair styles,
>> > > >>> tans, cosmetics. And this can be taken to a more
>> > > "artifactual"
>> > > >> form with
>> > > >>> dress, or a more physiological form with, say, body-
>> > > building.
>> > > >> From tattoos
>> > > >>> to ripped abs is a small shift when we are thinking about
>> > > the
>> > > >> body as a
>> > > >>> writable/readable object. If we want to get still more
>> > > >> physiological, and
>> > > >>> think not only about reading other people's bodies, but
>> > > >> reading our own,
>> > > >>> then the proprioceptive feelings we sense within out bodies
>> > > >> can be
>> > > >>> considered signs as well, whether exhilaration or nausea,
>> > > >> strength or
>> > > >>> weakness, etc. The meaning of these feelings is certainly
>> > > culturally>>> mediated. They are physiological phenomena, but
>> > > they are also
>> > > >> meaningful> cultural phenomena, with value judgements
>> > > attached,
>> > > >> with intertexts in
>> > > >>> literature, etc.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> And we can deliberately write to our most physiological
>> > > >> states, e.g. with
>> > > >>> drugs, to produce feelings that have cultural meanings and
>> > > >> values for us,
>> > > >>> whether of calm or elation, energy or hallucination. And to
>> > > a
>> > > >> considerable> extent, our modifications of our body
>> > > physiology
>> > > >> can be "read" by others,
>> > > >>> just as can our made physiques, tattoos, or hair styles.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> So I would say that the body mediates our sense of the world
>> > > >> and ourselves
>> > > >>> and other people in at least two ways: directly through
>> > > >> physiology, as with
>> > > >>> hormonal responses, sensory modalities of perception, bodily
>> > > >> affordances and
>> > > >>> dis-affordances ("handicaps" for example), etc. AND also in
>> > > >> these other,
>> > > >>> clearly semiotic and cultural ways, as a semiotic artifact,
>> > > as
>> > > >> well as with
>> > > >>> the cultural overlays of meaning that lie over and color the
>> > > >> meanings and
>> > > >>> responses to all the direct physiological mediations.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I do not, however, know what being wooden on a rainy day
>> > > feels
>> > > >> like to a
>> > > >>> chair.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> JAY.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Jay Lemke
>> > > >>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
>> > > >>> Educational Studies
>> > > >>> University of Michigan
>> > > >>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>> > > >>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke> <
>> http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Visiting Scholar
>> > > >>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
>> > > >>> University of California -- San Diego
>> > > >>> La Jolla, CA
>> > > >>> USA 92093
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Mabel Encinas wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>> Ok. You have a point. Then, lets start thinking from an
>> > > >> embodied approach
>> > > >>>> :)
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Let's accept that the body is an artifact. What is then the
>> > > >> difference>> between a chair and the body. Both are yes,
>> > > >> "products of human art", as you
>> > > >>>> express it. However, only in the process (practice) there
>> > > >> seem to be a
>> > > >>>> difference. Both are material and ideal (the body is not
>> > > >> separated from the
>> > > >>>> mind; the chair, this one here that I feel is made of cloth
>> > > >> and a cushioned
>> > > >>>> material, plastic, metal, and involves the ideal that a
>> > > >> designer and workers
>> > > >>>> in a factory transformed so people could seat on). What is
>> > > >> the difference?
>> > > >>>> Mabel
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>  Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:53:40 +1100
>> > > >>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
>> > > >>>>> To: liliamabel@hotmail.com
>> > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] bodies and artifacts
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Well, the body is the body is the body. The reason the
>> > > >>>>> question arises for me is when we make generalisations in
>> > > >>>>> which things like person, artefact, consciousness, concept,
>> > > >>>>> action, and so on, figure, where does the body fit in? My
>> > > >>>>> response was that even though it is obviously unique in many
>> > > >>>>> ways, it falls into the same category as artefacts.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> My questions to you are: what harm is done? why is anything
>> > > >>>>> ignored? And, what is the body if it is not a material
>> > > >>>>> product of human art, used by human beings?
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Andy
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Mabel Encinas wrote:
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> Is this way being fruitful? That is why I do not like to
>> > > >> consider the
>> > > >>>>>> body as an artifact. Did not cognitive pscyhology do
>> > > that?
>> > > >> (Bruner, Acts
>> > > >>>>>> of Meaning). Then intentions and all the teleological
>> > > >> aspects are so
>> > > >>>>>> much ignored...
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> Mabel
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>  Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 20:21:09 +1100
>> > > >>>>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
>> > > >>>>>>> To: liliamabel@hotmail.com
>> > > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] bodies and artifacts
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> Sure. But the body has been constructed like a living
>> > > >>>>>>> machine - the various artefacts that you use
>> > (especially but
>> > > >>>>>>> not only language and images) are "internalized" in some
>> > > >>>>>>> way. So one (external) artefact is replaced by another
>> > > >>>>>>> (internal) artefact. Yes?
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> Andy
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> Mabel Encinas wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>> However, sometimes practices do not involve other artefact
>> > > >>>>>>>> than the body (some practices are directed to the
>> > > body),
>> > > >> and that was
>> > > >>>>>>>> why I was talking about the limit of thinking about the
>> > > >> body as
>> > > >>>>>>>> artefact... is that a limit? That is why I mentioned
>> > > the
>> > > >> body as "the
>> > > >>>>>>>> raw material". I was thinking for example practices
>> > > >> linked to
>> > > >>>>>>> meditation
>> > > >>>>>>> and the like, for example, among many others.
>> > > >>>>>>>> Mabel
>> > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> > --
>> > > --
>> > > >> ------------
>> > > >>>>>> Keep your friends updated— even when you’re not signed in.
>> > > >>>>>> <
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-
>> > > >> it-in-action/social-network-
>> > > >> basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_5:092010
>> > > >>>>> --
>> > > >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> > --
>> > > --
>> > > >> -----------
>> > > >>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>> > > >>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>> > > >>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > _________________________________________________________________> >>>>
>> Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook
>> > > >> updates, right
>> > > >>>> from Hotmail®.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-
>> > > >> it-in-action/social-network-
>> > > >> basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-
>> > >
>> > xm:SI_SB_4:092009_______________________________________________>>>>
>> 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/xm
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > xmca mailing list
>> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> > --
>> > > -------
>> > > Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>> > > Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>> > > Ilyenkov $20 ea
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > 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
>>
>
>

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
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