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

[xmca] Re: Engagement with Activity Theory.

Christine --

I have also been thinking about "appreciation." My musings led me to
connect the idea of "I appreciate the effort you made" with the idea of
appreciation in a phrase such as "The price of my house appreciated."

In both cases, it appears that there is some sort of increase in "value."
If someone else appreciates what I do, my "self" (lets make that my
"dialogic self") increases by some measure of the greater valuing of me by
the person doing the appreciating. Ditto if I appreciate what someone else
does (such as writing a thought provoking note on xmca).

Around the intervention methodology folks I hang out with, the idea of
"reciprocal relations of exchange" which Olga Vasquez has favored gets a
lot of, well, appreciation.

Always and over again the issue off what constitutes reciprocity is right
in the middle of the enagement.


On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:28 PM, christine schweighart <
schweighartgate@hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Dear Mike,
> I read  your joint article in the special issue of T&P 2011 and
> appreciated the notion of mutual appropriation - I was contrasting with,
> and have not found myself able to 'project' into 'formative teaching
> experment'  - though this would be another thread. Also in that issue Yryo
> used a definition of 'intervention' from Gerald Midgley, who I am working
> with now, his contribution has been to introduce a concept of 'boundary
> critique' -influenced by Ullrich -into  'Critical Systems Thinking'.
> I became interested in 'activity theory' after responding to a call for
> papers for ISCAR 2005 Seville - and you responded! Also in that conference
> you gave a very moving talk WITH from and back to your audience - I enjoyed
> that - but of course the 'content' has now gone in memory.  It was only
> when Seth Chaiklin moved to the UK and 'rounded up'  stragglers that I
> engaged 'theoretically', very slowly and with very different values about
> research, but I got to the question I asked Andy, and still have -  in
> there somewhere-my historical traces to understand my communions and
> differences etc..  Going back into 'systems'  - with  the opacity of
> 're-entry',  initial dialogues show appreciation ' we haven't got a theory
> of activity' :).  Though their background has a stong history of community
> developmental work, and environmental developmental intervention .
> In using this list serve, my email doesn't seem to 'reply' to messages in
> the way others mange to- I don't get a smooth 'title' and copy message, so
> I've not just quite got the hang of this. It meant that I couldn't direct
> comments - so early on I 'lost' responding to David Kellog on the
> discussion f the wine and bottles - and also on the talk of recognition. I
> have attempted to present a distinction of subjectification and
> 'appreciation' in recent talks - but this is 'unappreciated' with those
> deeply immersed in the notion of subjectification --  So I read greg's
> comments and will re-read the whole thread- it went very quickly!
> Also I can't get an 'automatic' email to open on Bruce's link ( same
> problem with my hotmail set up) - so if there are any guidelines as to what
> is acceptable in terms of links to other websites etc  please point me
> there( and how to 'reply' in threads  with more focus/proximity). Live
> links are stripped out , sometimes they are 'accidentally' cut and pasted
> in haste, - but don't know the trouble this might provoke your server etc.
> Many thanks, Christine.
xmca mailing list