[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Help? - Microgenesis, Microgenetic, Microgeny?
- To: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Help? - Microgenesis, Microgenetic, Microgeny?
- From: Greg Thompson <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:52:06 -0600
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=iUaHuEKyVNKtLbMDQpnGJYUr6rPpiJavyW5klbK4MJM=; b=SsmFcchebfdugQLMDWkFYWLbqwc6ve/Pn2Af7Dwxp4WR3lIp2QDXfGxvyfFAgulJe7 fCS0DJ93LEKzEBdgV17YlcuaX4VV1GKqv7PsAR48mKmohgRiBID6Ue1wBz+CCqbZvIeA kuJHFVyTJ7IO5WEmerh5CPESpkN1kGFs5p5pip6Z9jypvN1k4GuDWU2fHxiq3xkT7XjA Ye6h8vK6xTkD2KCV/+29bvFA+X7INQdjJsLLXv54gTQpsh3ZJ/R5+FrIZPYb8I+6tZkw vdPge1gzf8U2/SgFMbA1legp3YNrYCoTFtbqJBAcAbCa/HI/k0P5lYwqXKvY5hXX5dA4 qFmw==
- In-reply-to: <CAHCnM0AqFZUQ2HVN_rRw115XG2BcBYsN-kmr31XR4u9gqcpY3w@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAHH++PmB3CX0=GohcL4jhsbOCVCLj63EHvVHX1Ka=36ZmBj0dQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGaCnpyr929c2msRyc9d+h9n1+ENxu0TH4QeJqBHe2NabUFb6A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHCnM0AqFZUQ2HVN_rRw115XG2BcBYsN-kmr31XR4u9gqcpY3w@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Many many thanks to all for cites and suggestions!
Now that I have a minute, let me mention a little more about the question.
In reading through papers on the microgenetic method, I find that the
concept does one thing nicely and another not so nicely.
What it does nicely:
What is very clear with people's uses of "microgenetic" is that, like
phylogenetic, cultural-historical, and ontogenetic, it describes a
timescale - that of seconds to hours (not sure about the high end here). (I
would add that microgeny is thus a good place to attend to phenomenological
concerns since this is the timescale on which experience happens).
What it does not do so well:
What is not so clear about the term "microgenetic" is the object of
creation, growth, development. We have an answer to "what it is that
develops in phylogeny, cultural history, and ontogeny?" Species, culture,
individual. But what is it that develops in microgeny?
In a post from 2 years ago, David Kellogg suggested that we shouldn't talk
about ZOPEDs in microgenetic context unless they involve the kinds of
ontogenetic revolutionary changes that are of interest to Vyogtsky.
(original post can be found here:
There is something of this that I find very appealing as a way of keeping
true to original intentions of the concept of ZOPED and to helping to keep
the concept from becoming too much of what Uwe Porkeson calls a "plastic
word" - a word that can be used by anybody for anything (by the way, there
is an advantage to having your term go plastic - plastic words get wide
circulation - ZOPED is a case in point).
Yet, at the same time, it seems to me that David is bringing the object of
ontogeny (development of the individual) into microgeny. My sense is that
if we follow the form of progressively smaller objects of development as we
move from phylogeny down through CH and ontogeny and finally to microgeny,
then the object that develops in microgeny should be smaller than the
individual (which is the object of ontogenetic development).
If the object of microgeny is something smaller than the individual, then
should we even be speaking of ZOPEDs in microgeny. To go the other
direction in time, are there ZOPEDs for phylogeny and cultural history?
What would these look like? What is DEVELOPING in these ZOPEDs?
This points to another way of putting my question: Zone of Proximal
Development of WHAT?
I imagine that some of this question (if not all) is a rehash of old
conversations, so please feel free to point me in the direction of those
conversations so I can get caught up.
XMCA is wonderful, isn't it?
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM, mike cole <email@example.com> wrote:
> Ellice has given a nice list of articles by Robert Sigler who as used this
> concept extensively in his work.
> I agree that Jim Wertsch's book provides a good source for the overall
> set of ideas, but for contemporary work a good strategy might be to
> go to Amazon, choose books with Jaan Valsiner's name on them, look inside
> and search on microgenesis. Jaan has a gazillion edited/authored books
> where contemporary work using this concept can be found.
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Larry Purss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Hi Greg
> > I'm wondering if your explorations of microgenesis and previous posts
> > on discourse analysis [for example Elinor Ochs] are linked??
> > I want to share an impression I have when reading *discourse analysis*
> > ways of understanding. First I will share my understanding of the way
> > discourse analysis relates to ways of knowing:
> > The term *entextualization* as the process whereby language becomes
> > detachable from its original context of production and becomes
> > *reified* as text and becomes a portable linquistic object.
> > Practices of entextualization defining elite communities in society,
> > who, through the authority of their entextualizations are able to
> > exercise power over others. From this theoretical perspective of
> > discourse analysis to be engaged in creating texts *about* reality IS
> > to engage in creating reality.
> > When I read this theoretical *style* of theory construction I have a
> > sense of an instrumental approach which privleges the observer of the
> > scene. The data are *interpreted* as a form of *mapping of the
> > territory* in a *systematic approach* to the data.
> > Greg does the *feel* of this approach have a different sense ability
> > and way of relating to the data than the more dialogical way of
> > relating to the data?. For example Martin Buber's distinction between
> > the I-Thou relation [the interhuman realm that is participatory] in
> > contrast to the I-It realm that is more instrumental and privleges the
> > observer observing the scene of data collection??
> > I'm not sure if others have this *impression* on how the data is
> > presented [and re-presented or translated].
> > Larry
> > On 9/20/12, Greg Thompson <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > I'm curious if folks out in XMCA-land could point me in the direction
> > > good papers that define/explain or use the concept of microgenesis (or
> > any
> > > of its kin terms)?
> > >
> > > >From a CHAT/SCT perspective is preferred, but it seems like the
> > > has
> > > life in other fields too and that would be good to know more about.
> > >
> > > Many thanks in advance!
> > >
> > > -greg
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > > Department of Anthropology
> > > Brigham Young University
> > > Provo, UT 84602
> > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> > > __________________________________________
> > > _____
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > email@example.com
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> xmca mailing list
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Department of Anthropology
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
xmca mailing list