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

Re: [xmca] Structure vs. Agency



Andy, 
Could you elaborate. once more, on the idea of radius of subjectivity?

Jorge

Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
Profesor Asociado y Director
Departamento de Psicología
Universidad de los Andes







On Sep 25, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:

> An example of the dangers of polysemy, David, is that archetypal structuralist, Louis Althusser, means by "agency" what we mean when we say that germs are the agents of disease - the exasct opposite of what most CHATters mean. As you recall, I resolved this conundrum with the idea of "radius of subjectivity."
> 
> Andy
> 
> David Kellogg wrote:
>> After they introduce the "boundary" concept Jahreie and Ottesen introduce two terms from mainstream sociology: "structure" and "agency". I'm not a sociologist, and I've only read a bit aroung the edges of this opposition. But I have the following questions, which are really "dubbio", suspicious doubts, rather than questions:
>> a) The ETHNOMETHODOLOGICAL, microgenetic "dubbio". If boundaries are "constructed in interaction" (in the ethnomethodological sense), can we say that they are "structure" as opposed to "agency"? Doesn't "constructed in interaction" imply the (microgenetic) emergence of structure out of agency? Or is there somehow a pre-existing blueprint implicit in interactions that can be made explicit, through, say, conversation analysis?
>> b) A CH/AT, ontogenetic "dubbio". Leontiev insists that society cannot be seen as confronting the individual as something hostile, something alien in psychological substance, something irreconcilable, and a lot of Vygotsky's objections to Piaget can be read in this light too (development cannot be seen as the red liquid of socialized thinking forcing out the white liquid of egocentric thinking). Doesn't this suggest that what we are describing here is boundary construction rather than development?
>> c) Finally, a GENERAL, methodological "dubbio". Andy suggests that we need to be pretty careful about what goes into our mouths and minds, because some concepts out there mean very different things from what we think they mean. As a foreign language teacher, I wholeheartedly agree with this (children who call me "David Teacher!" are actually TRYING to be very respectful, but you need to translate literally into Korean to understand that). Can we really use "structure" and "agency" in opposition to each other without CREATING the boundaries that we are supposed to be studying? Can we use these terms at all? Don't they imply EXACTLY the kind of ahistorical Saussurean view of a "system" that Wolff-Michael criticizes in his editorial (this issue)?  David Kellogg
>> Seoul National University of Education
>> David Kellogg
>> 
>> 
>>      _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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