[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory
- From: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:26:46 +1100
- In-reply-to: <CAGaCnpz0R6traMrmnQF1H6f3D2MY3hc=9jx1vrOBDvZFNY5d6g@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAGaCnpzXMnauz79g2UvazmCudyU7y56cLUguC9wrpQXnYBTwig@mail.gmail.com> <B0A6DB24-055F-488D-A87B-7960601D7E91@umich.edu> <E23E629A42F087498471D39762DF7EB2DCA4221EBA@ESTES.ucdenver.pvt> <53331B91.email@example.com> <CAGaCnpx-TDVnE9SHry5quqV37-9s8MhYHKPSF4yurGQLP5OiuQ@mail.gmail.com> <5333DFD2.firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAG1MBOHPOrzp=P1b2sO-vCCs8HHYj_RjarXZe474fCo6GX7yQw@mail.gmail.com> <E23E629A42F087498471D39762DF7EB2DCA4221EC2@ESTES.ucdenver.pvt> <53343B1E.email@example.com> <CAHH++Pn57e7juVzXvm2TK5dhXDp8bG6MNxzAgUqSaFoAfjc4-Q@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <533534E2.email@example.com> <CAGaCnpz0R6traMrmnQF1H6f3D2MY3hc=9jx1vrOBDvZFNY5d6g@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (Windows/20090812)
I am suggesting, Larry, that collaboration rather than discourse could
prove to be a very productive frame for analysis of human activity such
as Donna considered. But it is always wrong, of course, to suggest that
some other frame is to be discounted. Every frame of analysis gives us
specific insights. In that sense I overstated my claim. I was wrong to
suggest a consideration of types of collaboration "rather than" detailed
analysis of interactions. Obviously both should be used. Collaboration
puts the content rather than the form at the centre of analysis. To look
at types of collaboration allows that people participate in a project
with very different motives and can be legitimately understood by other
collaborators in such differing roles.
For example if two artists collaborate in producing a piece of public
art, the expectations are very different from when an artist employs a
technician with specialist skills. Expectations are very different. But
if one or the other party were to be confused about the type of
collaboration being carried out, and consequently their respective
roles, then great hurt would ensue.
Larry Purss wrote:
I experienced your question and as a sudden shift in the
collaboration. The exploration of positioning theory was moving in the
direction of questioning the potential of collaboration is an ideal
that may be constrained. The *meaning* of collaboration was being
modified and tending in one direction.
Your reflection on the value of reflection as a *core* value shifted
our engagement with this concept and collaboration *felt* different.
Collaboration went from feeling *suspect* to being a valued term. THIS
phenomena as felt tendency re-positions the concept of collaboration
in our community.
Andy, you then propose the more appropriate *posing* [positioning] of
this question must be *what TYPE of collaboration* is or is not in the
best interest of this or that student. Which then poses/positions the
question of "What TYPES of collaboration are there?".
You suggest that EACH TYPE has a NORM and the particular ways the
students in this class are *normed* I would pose as expressing a
particular VALUE position.
Therefore *types* AND *posings* AND *positionings* AND *values* AND
*norms* OF collaboration becomes a particular TYPE of storyline [genre??]
You are suggesting the concept *collaborative* is preferable to
*discourse*. I'm assuming you also would prefer *collaboration* to the
I am curious if others share Andy's preference for the concept
*collaboration* and exploring TYPES OR KINDS of collaboration as a way
to *reveal* [unmask??] the dynamic flow of *streams* of collaboration
as expanding and extending the understanding of BOTH positioning
theory AND collaboration.
I will send a comment on another post which indicates the origin of
Harre's positioning theory within Vygotsky's cultural historical
theory AS a humanistic storyline
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Andy Blunden <email@example.com
Donna, I agree that "Collaboration is incredible complex" but then
you add "and hard to achieve."
Rather than taking it that "collaboration" means one very strictly
defined norm, couldn't we accept that all the phenomena you
describe (and more) are aspects of collaboration, and that there
is more than one norm of collaboratin and many more ways of
falling short of normativity, of being betrayed, exploited,
disappointed, misunderstood, etc., etc.? I prefer to take every
human relationship as an instance of collaboration, that is, I
take collaboration as the lens through which to understand human
relationships. But rather than setting up one norm against which
every human experience turns out to be a dreadful failure, we
could see every human experience as being a window on the
experience of collaboration, the expectations, the productivity,
the potential for disappointment, exploitation, etc.? Is there a
better way to understand human relationship? Discourse? I think
"collaboration" is a superior conceptual framework than "discouse."