[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz
Plus, I take Merleau-Ponty to be saying that at the right level of analysis, talk *is* gesture.
Martin
On May 2, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Vera John-Steiner wrote:
> Larry et al,
> The dichotomy between words and gestures, (the latter being non-rule
> governed and spontaneous) is not quite in accordance with the rich research
> literature on gestures. David McNeil's research reveals interesting
> synchronies between speech and gesture. You may like to look into his work,
> Vera
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Larry Purss
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 5:11 PM
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com
> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz
>
> Mike, Monica, Andy,and others
>
>
>
> Mike, sedimentation as the relatively stable product of joint activity
> materialized in language is an excellent starting point. I'm still
> attempting to understand what is meant by *materialized* in the statement
> *materialized in language* In other words, as we participate in the
> *ensemble* of modalities expressing meaning [motor, perceptual, gesture,
> language, artifacts] *as* enactments questions if one modality (language)
> is conventional and rule bound while another modality (gesture) is
> spontaneous and free and and expressing subjective non-conventional
> [natural] expressions.
>
> I want to return to Martin's exploration of *inner form* as central to
> meaning
> Shpet wrote a book on inner form where he expanded on Humboldt's notion of
> language as a *living* entity. Shept wrote,
>
> "We must look at language not as a DEAD product OF a generative process but
> instead language is a living generative process. This is the central tenet
> he lays out in his phenomenological account of language as *energeia* not
> *ergon* [extending Humboldt's idea]. Language *as* activity of the spirit
> and the immanent work of the soul. Language is the foundation of the very
> nature of being human. ... Language can be viewed not only as a substance
> but as a SUBJECT. Not only as a thing, product, or result of production
> [instrument or tool to be picked up and used] but *as* production PROCESS
> asenergeia."
>
> The notion that language is a SUBJECT, an activity of the spirit, adds an
> element of dynamism that is often not a part of contemporary Western
> traditions of schorlarship. Martin's exploration of Merleau-Ponty's
> notion of meaning *as* style explores the same theme.
>
> I would like to add Gadamer's voice to this conversation with his
> notion that sedimented materiality in language may have its *own* being
> that participates and answers the interpreter in genuine conversations
> [living texts]. Conversations & texts are hermeneutically interpreted and
> in THIS dialogical process BOTH subject and living materialized language
> [as subject] are transformed within expanding *fusions* of horizons. This
> suggests that language itself is living spirit [being] with its own
> energeia and its own horizon of understanding that can *open* and *unveil*
> an infinity of the *unsaid* in its enactment with our subjectiviy.
>
> This reflection on language as living energeia may be far too metaphysical
> [with talk of spirit and soul] and I may be mis-understanding Shpet and
> Gadamer and Merleau-Ponty. [I will leave others to comment on Vygotsky].
> However this phenomenological, historical, and metaphorical exploration
> attempting to render the energeia of language in DYNAMIC flight, and its
> infinite unveiling of the *unsaid* within further conversations and further
> unveilings] seems to be a theme inhabiting language.
>
> I may be taking us all down a rabbit hole and if so I apologize. I do not
> have a background in language studies but the materiality of language
> [object *enlightenment*, subject *romanticism*, energeia, convention, rule
> bound, non-conventional, fluid, dynamic, spontaneous, living, product,
> productive] seems to have an ambiguous nature that calls for continuous
> hermeneutical unveiling as we descend deeper into its overflowing potential.
>
> Elena Cuffari playing within the traditions of phenomenology, pragmatics,
> and gesture studies as one example of this living energeia [not ergon]
>
> Larry
>
> PS My jumping off point for these reflections on Vygotsky being
> influenced by Shpet.
> http://books.google.ca/books?id=iw4jk11pm_YC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=Phenomenolo
> gy+of+language+%22inner+form%22&source=bl&ots=WwslGiIO7c&sig=QPVSgaPHxMdWYQ4
> EImKktK-Hcqc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cr6hT4mhCIKyiQKhm8CYBw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&
> q=Phenomenology%20of%20language%20%22inner%20form%22&f=false
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:38 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That is from my memory of lsv, not my idea.
>> mike
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:36 AM, monica.hansen <
>> monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Describing meaning as a "the most stable pole" is that your metaphor for
>>> your interpretation of LSV as a whole or does that come from a particular
>>> contextual instantiation?
>>>
>>> When you put it that way, Mike, it does seem daunting! It is amazing we
>>> ever thought to study psychological processes, especially using science
> ;).
>>> There are so many factors that can't be isololated--the nature of the
>>> relationships in question is not easily defined by the types of
>>> relationships we are used to establishing in science. So, all I can come
> up
>>> with is that we continue to work at our understandings.
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] on
>>> behalf of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:35 AM
>>> To: Larry Purss
>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz
>>>
>>> Parsing the multi-phased, overlapping, seemingly cyclical processes
>>> involved in joint mediated action in real time seems like a task that
> must
>>> be specified in the particulars of the case, Larry. Avoiding the pothole
>>> that opens up when we murder to dissect seems essential, but rendering
>>> accessible the process in flight also seems essential.
>>>
>>> We have to make sense at the same time that we are making meaning, seems
>>> to
>>> me. If, a la lsv, meaning is thought of as "the most stable pole" of
>>> externalized sense making, materialized in language, perhaps it can be
>>> thought of the sedimented (relatively stable) product of joint activity.
>>>
>>> How to obtain empirical evidence of these multi-temporal, simultaneous,
>>> two
>>> way processes at multiple time scales seems a question worth asking.
>>> Especially in micro time (relative to ordinary experience) getting
>>> access to observation of the processes at work seems a daunting
> challenge.
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> You wrote,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> from this perspective, meaning is retrospectively
>>>> constructed. That idea seems entirely consistent with joint-mediated
>>>> activity as a unit of analysis for lots of the phenomena we discuss
>>>>
>>>> The queston that comes to mind is, Do we grant the backward glance the
>>>> royal road *to* meaning?
>>>> Where do we locate the *dialogical* notion of mediation that posits
>>>> meaning as located *in* the answering of the other? Until our playful
>>>> encounter *in* the conversation [conversation as having its own living
>>>> experience or being] is answered meaning continues in transition to
>>>> becoming. This notion of meaning points more to the centrality of
>>>> *translation* within the dance rather than locating meaning in the
>>>> completed actuality of our anticipated projection, as determinative.
> At
>>>> least within the conversation I'm having with myself.
>>>>
>>>> Mike, as Martin is expressing, what is the relation BETWEEN *the
>>> backward
>>>> glance* as completing the arc AND the *answering of the other* as the
>>>> completion of the arc?
>>>>
>>>> Are these alternative ways of *forming* meaning? The backward glance as
>>> a
>>>> particular TYPE of consciousness and the *answering other* as another
>>>> TYPE? The centrality of the permeable relational boundary between
> inner
>>>> and outer and the reciprocity and movement back and forth between these
>>>> forms of meaning? Or does one type subsume the other?
>>>>
>>>> Both point to *joint mediation* but one seems to privilege *cognition*
>>> as
>>>> located in subjectivity [MY backward glance] while the other form of
>>>> mediation seems to privilege the *play* as having its own being *in*
>>> which
>>>> *we* [not *I*] participate.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 9:32 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To me what stands out is the fact that from this perspective, meaning
>>> is
>>>>> retrospectively
>>>>> constructed. That idea seems entirely consistent with joint-mediated
>>>>> activity as a unit
>>>>> of analysis for lots of the phenomena we discuss, teaching/learning
>>>>> processes for example.
>>>>> I am not so sure about the "reflective attitude" part being necessary.
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On page 4 of the article on multiple realities Schultz writes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it makes us - in our language - either live within our present
>>>>> experiences,
>>>>>> directed toward their objects, or turn back in a reflective attitude
>>> to
>>>>> our
>>>>>> past experiences and ask for their meaning.*[7]*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the same spirit as Martin was reflecting on the *relation
> between*
>>>>>> realization and instantiation [*play* in Gadamer's language] the
>>>>> either/or
>>>>>> language in the above quote [directed toward objects OR turning
> back]
>>>>> may
>>>>>> be interpreted *as* a reciprocal hermeneutical relation of
>>> continuous
>>>>>> moving back and forth and interpenetrating with more permeable
>>>>> boundaries
>>>>>> and more dynamic flow [in other words *fusing* of the horizons of
>>>>> present
>>>>>> experiences and reflective attitude]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I understand Gadamer, he would suggest Schultz is operating from
> a
>>>>>> particular prejudice-structure of understanding reflective conduct
>>>>>> [subject-object reflection] whereas Gadamer is pointing to an
>>>>> alternative
>>>>>> form of what he terms *effective* reflection. I acknowledge I may
>>> have
>>>>> be
>>>>>> *mis*-understanding Gadamer, and what I'm suggesting is tentative,
>>> but
>>>>> I am
>>>>>> hearing a particular type of reflection being articulated as I read
>>> the
>>>>>> article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy, Mike, Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for this lead. I have been reading Gadamer's response to
>>>>> Habermas
>>>>>>> and the interplay between his notion of *traditions* and Habermas
>>>>> notion
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> *emancipation* within social theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The two chapter's of Martin's book will help further the
>>>>> conversations on
>>>>>>> these themes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin, your conversation with David on the interplay of
>>> realization
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> instantiation and the centrality of the *relation between* these
>>>>> concepts
>>>>>>> seems central to this discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also wonder about the interplay between realization and
>>> reflection
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> Gadamer's notion of multiple TYPES of reflection. Assertive
>>>>> reflection,
>>>>>>> thematic reflection, and what Gadamer names as *effective
>>> reflection*
>>>>>>> where one engages with developing the skills to enter and
>>> participate
>>>>>>> effectively in playing the games without holding back and *merely*
>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>> at playing the game. Effective playing as having its *own* being
>>> and
>>>>>> *we*
>>>>>>> enter this play and get *taken up* and *carried* along within the
>>>>> play.
>>>>>> Not
>>>>>>> privleging either *subjective* consciousness or *objective*
>>>>> consciousness
>>>>>>> but rather privileging the play in which subjectivity and
>>> objectivity
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> their *ground* [metaphorically]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin, I'm not sure if this was the direction you were taking
>>>>>>> theconversation, but it what I interpreted you saying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Andy et al -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martin's book, the science of qualitative research has a chapter
>>> that
>>>>>>>> traces Kant-Husserl-
>>>>>>>> Schutz - BergerLuckman that we r reading at Lchc. It helped me a
>>> lot
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> sort out this branch
>>>>>>>> of thought. It is followed by a chapter that traces Heidegger -
>>>>> Merleau
>>>>>>>> Ponty- garfinkle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have heard there is an electronic version, but do not know how
>>> to
>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> it. Working from actual hard copy!
>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Andrew Babson <ababson@umich.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He was very influential to Garfinkel, and so from an
>>> intellectual
>>>>>>>>> historical perspective, the development of ethnomethodology,
>>>>>>>>> conversation analysis and modern sociolinguistics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/12, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to share the attached article, written in 1945
> by
>>>>>> Alfred
>>>>>>>>>> Schuetz, a refugee from the Frankfurt School living in New
>>> York,
>>>>> like
>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> many others. In the article he appropriates Wm James, GH Mead
>>> and
>>>>> J
>>>>>>>>>> Dewey, whilst coming from the Pheneomenology of Husserl, to
>>> adapt
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> concepts of Pheneomenology to social theory. It is quite
>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>>>> He
>>>>>>>>>> remains, in my view within the orbit of Phenomenology, but
>>> readers
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> recognise significant points of agreement with AN Leontyev's
>>>>> Activity
>>>>>>>>>> Theory. What he calls "Conduct" comes close to "Activity," and
>>> he
>>>>>>>>>> introduces the concept of Action which is certainly the same
> as
>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>> for CHAT, and instead of "an activity" (the 3rd level in ANL's
>>>>>> system)
>>>>>>>>>> he has "Project." But although this project has the same
>>> relation
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> Action, it is a subjectively derived project posited on the
>>> world,
>>>>>>>>>> rather than project discovered in the world, and having a
>>>>> basically
>>>>>>>>>> societal origin. This is the point at which I think he
> confines
>>>>>> himself
>>>>>>>>>> to Phenomenology, and fails to reach a real social theory. The
>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>> business about "multiple realities" which gives the article
> its
>>>>> title
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> very tedious, but actually is valid in its basics I think.
>>>>>>>>>> Some of us on this list may appreciate him. He's a recent
>>>>> discovery
>>>>>>>> for me.
>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>>> Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
>>>>>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1608461459/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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