[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Development of development
I think I get the difference but as you point out we can engage in a conversation on the characteristics of lifeworlds.
Yes this topic goes back to Weber, but it still seems to have relevance to the current article being discussed .
----- Original Message -----
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010 8:16 am
Subject: Re: [xmca] Development of development
To: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Hello Larry:
> Thank you for reintroducing this topic, it has a long life and
> glad to see
> it continue. I can't really comment greatly on Habermas,
> lifeworlds or
> the like.
> the reason for this post is to inquire about the dialectic in
> writing. I have just briefly read a few critiques and am
> dichotomies between social and individual and am lacking enough
> about Habermas to find the dialectic. Could you perhaps
> enlighten me on
> this for I have read enough of your writing to know you value
> Just want to mention this has been a bountiful year of morels
> and wild
> asparagas; yum!
> Andy Blunden <email@example.com>
> Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 05/14/2010 10:09 AM
> Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind,
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <email@example.com> cc:
> Subject: Re: [xmca]
> Development of development
> This doubtless seems exceptionally pedantic, but in my view
> "socially situated development" is something quite different
> from "the social situation of development."
> As I see it, when Vygotsky emphasises the importance of
> identifying and understanding the *situation* which drives
> development he is requiring us to form a concept of the
> situation, whatever it may be in a given case. He makes a
> contrast between this approach and a description of the (let
> us say for the sake of contrast) the context or environment
> in which the child happens to find themself. This context or
> environment is characterized in terms of its various
> attributes, such as the ethnic background of parents,
> socioeconomic status, values, and so on. This way of
> characterising the relation is really complexive (to use
> Vygotsky's word) and not conceptual as such.
> You correctly point out the need for a conceptual grasp of
> the lifeworld's character, but I think "situation" is
> different from situating something, Larry. Do you see what I
> mean? If we have the characteristics of the surrounding
> world on one hand and the development on the other, then we
> have situated the development but we don't know the situation.
> Larry Purss wrote:
> > Hi everyone
> > I thought I would log on and reflect on social situations of
> [Fleer and Hedegaard article.]
> > I want to bring in Martin's ideas from his edited book
> "Cultural and
> Critical Perspectives on Human Development" (2001) On page
> 142, 143 he
> elaborates on Habermas's notion of the "lifeworld" to explore
> development of development [innovations in the institutions that
> specific developmental pathways]
> > Martin, following Habermas, contrasts lifeworlds with
> SYSTEMS [institutional structures that develop particular "kinds
> persons". I believe this distinction of institutions as existing
> within a
> tension between different ways to structure relational practices
> critical to our reflection on socially situated development.
> > Martin offers a key insight when he states "The
> rationalization efforts
> depended for their effect on the CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE
> LIFEWORLD of
> the school, without having an adequately CONCEPTUAL grasp of the
> lifeworlds character.
> > As we go forward in describing socially situated development I
> this recognition of the foundational requirement for
> rationalized systems depends on maintaining lifeworlds.
> > However the contradictions involved in this statement are
> obvious as the
> more "successful" the implementation of rationalized systems of
> institutional practices, the more fragmented the lifeworlds become.
> > The "project" [Andy's term] that I see Fleer & Hedegaard
> engaged in in
> their explication of socially situated development can be
> enriched by
> including the notion of the lifeworld's character [and the
> VALUES this
> notion implies].
> > Martin also brings in Latour's notion of classrooms and
> existing as institutions as NODES within a wide ranging NETWORK
> of distal
> rationalized SYSTEMS that exert "a relationist ontology"
> (Latour, 1997 as
> cited in Packer p. 143) that threatens the "bursting of the
> capacity of
> the lifeworld" Habermas (as cited in Packer p.143).
> > The development of development trajectory of our current
> structures needs to explore the historically continuing
> destruction of
> schools as lifeworlds. The 5th dimension, and Golden key
> schools are
> particular examples of responding to this rationalizing process
> philosophically I believe we need to engage in asking how we can
> lifeworlds within our current public schools.
> > Larry
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435
> Skype andy.blunden
> An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity:
> xmca mailing list
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list