[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Leontyev's activities
Many thanks for this. These are wonderful connections.
Don't know if I have the Shotter you are referring to. Do you have a cite?
or perhaps could email me a paper offline?
Also, I'm wondering if you could say more about Shotter's idea of a third
realm. Again, I'm a little slow here - I didn't catch what the first and
second realms were?
And finally, could you elaborate a bit on what the third realm is?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Larry Purss <email@example.com> wrote:
> I have downloaded Annika's paper and will listen to how she weaves together
> CHAT and frame analysis.
> Two quick comments.
> Greg asked about how we understand *agency* and if there are alternatives
> to *sovereign possessive agency* that continue to confirm *agency* but a
> less emphatic agency more receptive to emerging and participating within
> conversations. He also asked if settings or contexts also exhibit *agency*
> I believe this concept of agency has relevance.
> Metaphors may not be merely *vehicles* to carry *sense*. Metaphors may
> actually *be* ways of thinking [as modes, genres, tropes, or kinds].
> Therefore Goffman's metaphor of *framing* biases us to modes of *seeing*
> and *perceiving* what PREVIOUSLY FORMED and this framing guides our
> anticipations going forward.
> John Shorter is *turning* our attention away from *framing* [not as
> misleading but as biased to understand as picturing]
> He is suggesting there is another realm [what he calls a third realm] that
> has remained invisible in plain sight.
> He calls this realm *conversational realities* which he suggests is entered
> through alternative metaphors AS *talking*.
> The central metaphor of *voice* as distinct from the metaphor of *framing*.
> Voice as metaphor moves to Bahktin and dialogue as emerging within micro
> processes. Mike cautions we are referring to different time scales.
> Shorter is also calling our attention to what is hidden in plain view. When
> talking we pay attention to processes of collaboration [Andy's 3 types]. I
> find Shotter's turning our attention to this third realm [captured in the
> metaphor of voice] adding a realm to Goffman's metaphor of framing [as
> previously FORMED frames]
> If these two alternative metaphors are making distinct a difference then a
> gap opens within which agency may enter as creative reflection.
> Question 1 on agency I hope can be further elaborated
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Antti Rajala <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Lubomir, thanks for suggesting symbolic interactionism as a frame of
> > incorporating these ideas. Anna-Maija Puroila discusses the legacies of
> > Goffman in her dissertation (in Finnish) and mentions that there are many
> > competing and contested interpretation's of Goffman's work. Some say that
> > his work was structuralist but more often he is associated with symbolic
> > interactionism, ethnomethodology, or phenomenological sociology. Where
> > would activity theory fit in among these?
> > To me Goffman's student's Goodwin's ethno-methdological approach seems
> > partly compatible with CHAT. In his paper, Action and embodiment within
> > situated human interaction (2000), Goodwin writes:
> > "This emphasis on cognition as a public, social process embedded within
> > historically
> > shaped material world is quite consistent with both Vygotskian
> > and
> > recent work in the social and anthropological study of scientific and
> > workplace practice
> > ..., but adds to such perspectives an equally strong focus on the details
> > of language
> > use and conversational organization."
> > Like Goodwin, I believe that this attention to details of language use
> > conversational organization, and to embodied interactions, in particular,
> > can enrich CHAT analyses. After all, in many classical CHAT work, we
> > see analyses of spoken interaction. Greg, to me Goodwin's work on
> > professional vision gives an elaborate account on the relationships
> > meanings and sensory fabric. In particular, in my case of students in a
> > bird-watching field trip the way he analyzes expert-novice interaction is
> > very valuable. I can, for example, see lots of highlighting on the part
> > the bird expert.
> > Goodwin's focus on the practices of seeing seems to me very compatible
> > Leontiev's theorizing of sensory fabric as constituting and being
> > constituted of action. Yet, in Goodwin's work the socio-emotional issues
> > brought in with the Leontiev's personal sense - in line with what Larry
> > written - seems to be given less attention in Goodwin. I wonder whether
> > Goodwin's approach contradicts Leontiev's approach that emphasizes such
> > internal issues as goals and motives. In my understanding
> > ethnomethdologists do not usually focus on goals and such.
> > The Gothenburg center lead by Roger Säljö has explored
> > inspired aspects of Goffman in relation to their version of sociocultural
> > perspective. See e.g the dissertation of Annika Lantz-Andersson:
> > https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/19736/1/gupea_2077_19736_1.pdf
> > Greg, Greeno has theorized the ways in which frames "create certain
> > affordances that solicit various types of behavior (whether 'cognitive',
> > 'emotional', or some other emically named type)." To my knowledge
> > work here focuses more on cognitive aspects and not that much on
> > aspects. He uses the notion of positioning in association with frames
> > (which he relates to Goffman). "This refers to ways in which an
> > is
> > entitled, expected, or perhaps obligated to participate in interactions
> > an activity system, such as a classroom or an experimental session
> > involving interaction with a computer program." (see, A Theory Bite on
> > Contextualizing, Framing, and Positioning: A Companion to Son and
> > Goldstone, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370000903014386)
> > Greg wrote:
> > "I might add to this that Goffman speaks of the way in which motivations
> > are, to a certain extent, entailed by frames (yes, "to a certain extent"
> > this does not mean the frames determine them!). Thus, frames bring with
> > them motivational relevancies as much as individuals do!"
> > I wonder if this interplay between collective frames and individuals can
> > conceptualized with meaning and sense. Object of an activity is framed in
> > terms of collectively shared meanings. Yet, each individual develops a
> > personal relationship to the object, that is, a personal sense.
> > By the way, thanks Mike for pointing out this overstatement of stability
> > with respect to meanings. This has bothered me a lot, too. A colleague of
> > mine even asserts that sense is never shared enough to become
> > called a shared meaning in Vygotsky/Leontiev sense.
> > Antti
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:01 AM, mike cole <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > I agree, very clearly statements of the sense/meaning relation, along
> > with
> > > the Mandelshtam line, " I forgot the thought I wanted to say, and
> > thought,
> > > unembodied, returned to the hall of shadows."
> > >
> > > In the quote here, I think LSV is somewhat overstating the stability of
> > > meaning across contexts; yes relative to the microgenetic processes of
> > > sense making capturable with
> > > modern technologies, but not totally "context independent." Even
> > dictionary
> > > meanings change, as LSV was well aware from his interest in the history
> > of
> > > words in relation to their appearance in children's vocabularies in
> > > ontogeny.
> > >
> > > Keeping the simultaneous relevance of several time scales in mind in
> > these
> > > discussions seems really important, as hard as it is to do.
> > > mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602